Royal Assent

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts: Consolidated Fund Act 2003, Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Act 2003.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Referendums]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State may make the order at any time during the period of two years starting with the date on which he gives a direction under section 12 in relation to the region so long as before he makes the order he has no cause to think that that level of interest has changed materially."

Baroness Blatch: The amendment would simplify the texture of the Bill which, as it stands, does not appear to make much sense. Clause 1(4) states:
	"The first condition is that the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest in the region in the holding of such a referendum".
	However, when one turns to subsection (6), the clause states:
	"The first condition is taken to be satisfied if . . . for the purpose of giving the direction he considered the level of interest in the region in the holding of such a referendum".
	My understanding is that the provision in subsection (6) should be a test of how subsection (4) is achieved, but no light is thrown on that whatever. We do not know how it will be done or the criteria on which it will be determined. We do not know how the level of interest will be measured. The preamble to that paragraph says:
	"The first condition is taken to be satisfied if—".
	I emphasise the word "if". One would expect there to be a test, and some indication of how that would happen.
	Will the Minister clarify the point and explain what seems to us a pointless complication? Either the clause should stop at subsection (4), so that the Secretary of State needs to accept the first condition that he must consider,
	"the level of interest in the region",
	and get on with it and not tell Parliament how he comes to his view, or my amendment should be accepted and we should set out in the Bill how that will be achieved.
	We regard the issue as important because the Bill, skeletal as it is, gives birth to a large amount of executive action that does not need parliamentary approval. For that reason, we think it important that the Minister should help Parliament to understand how the action will be tested. Ahead of the passage of the Bill and without any approval from Parliament, a soundings committee has been established and has completed its work, but we are finding little evidence of what happened out in the regions. However, on the basis of those soundings, according to subsection (4), the Secretary of State—Mr John Prescott—is able to say that, in his opinion, the level of interest in a region has been established, without telling us how that has been achieved. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 19 to 21.

Baroness Hamwee: The soundings exercise has been discreet, to use an uncontentious term. One would not want it to be as discredited as it may be in danger of becoming. However, the amendment does not make it clear how the Secretary of State can judge if there is a substantial decrease in interest in the holding of a referendum. In other words, how is the Secretary of State to assess whether apathy is breaking out?

Lord Waddington: Let us suppose that a referendum takes place in one part of the country that shows that there is minimal interest in regional government there, and that referendum takes place a year after the machinery has been set in motion to hold a referendum in another region. Surely, it would be ridiculous for the Secretary of State to waste everyone's time and money on having a referendum in a second region, when the referendum in the region, where the Secretary of State presumably believed there would be the most enthusiasm for regional government, had resulted in a resounding "No". At that stage, the Secretary of State should pause and ask himself whether the game is worth the candle.

Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to answer those questions. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is making a purely hypothetical point. I suppose that Committee stage is designed to test out the hypotheticals, but it is somewhat mischievous of him to raise that point.
	Amendment No. 18 relates to Clause 1(6). I shall explain how this part of the Bill is designed to work.
	Clause 1 sets out the conditions to be followed in order to cause a referendum to be held in any English region on establishing an elected assembly. The first precondition is in subsection (4), which provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied of,
	"the level of interest in the region in the holding of such a referendum".
	Subsection (6) provides that the pre-condition is deemed to be satisfied if three requirements are met, including that the level of interest in holding a referendum has been considered before giving the direction under Clause 12. If any of the requirements were not met, subsection (8) would require him to consider the views expressed, the information and evidence provided to him and any published material that he thought appropriate in order to satisfy the first precondition. In effect, a new soundings exercise might have to be conducted.
	Amendment No. 18 would remove subsection (6) of Clause 1 but would then replace it with almost identical wording. We believe it important that the Secretary of State is able to consider the level of interest in a referendum before directing a local government review which involves enormous resources. As we discussed last week, depending on the size of the region and the number of unitary and two-tier authorities, the boundary review could take six to 12 or so months and cost a considerable sum. Clause 12 enables the interest level to be considered before a local government review is directed. In regions where there is very little interest, a referendum would not be justified. A review would therefore not be held and that expense saved.
	So it makes sense for Clause 1(6) to make explicit reference back to that consideration. That is what Clause 1(6)(b) actually does. Otherwise, against what is the Secretary of State supposed to measure the "material change"? There would be nothing against which to check it. As I think I said at the end of our deliberations last Thursday, when the Secretary of State has made a judgment on the soundings—which will, of course, be after Royal Assent to this Bill—he will announce that judgment to Parliament and provide the evidence on which it is based. As I said, the soundings exercise has been formally completed. However, as I also said, we will take on board any reasonable points made during the Bill's passage. Nevertheless the assessment, which involves considerable work, has started.
	We shall publish a summary of the responses to the soundings exercise. I do not know whether the assertion that the soundings were "discreet" means that they were done with so much discretion that no one knew about them or whether they were a discrete operation within government. I shall take the more positive view that they were a discrete operation within government and were not done so discreetly that no one knew about them. People knew about them. That will be made clear when we publish a summary of people's views.
	I hope that I have sufficiently explained the position to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to withdraw Amendment No. 18. If so, we can proceed to the meat of the Bill.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I was interested to hear what the Minister was going to say about Amendment No. 18, and I listened with great interest to what he said. It is true, I think, that some of the soundings have been carried out very discreetly indeed. Many people did not know that soundings were taking place. Indeed, as I pointed out at col. 1542 of the Official Report for 13th March, people who wished to take part in those soundings were actually excluded from them. Since our last sitting, I have had a number of reactions to what I said and to the very helpful response of the Minister. I shall be sending him the evidence which is now reaching me about those who were excluded or discouraged from attending some of the soundings meetings.
	My question is this. If it is shown that the soundings so far have not been held in conformity with what is just, fair, reasonable and necessary to produce a proper result, will the Minister agree that soundings should take place again in those areas so that those who are opposed to holding a referendum at all or opposed to regional assemblies will truly have an opportunity to put their point of view?

Lord Rooker: First, as I have repeatedly said, the soundings are not about whether to have a regional assembly but about whether to have a referendum with a view to examining boundary changes for regional assemblies. As I said last week, if my noble friend can provide evidence about how the soundings were conducted, that would be fine. However, if people have been unable to express their views, it would be even better if he could send in those views. Although 3rd March was the formal closing date, Parliament is still considering the Bill and debating these issues. As we have said that we will not announce our judgment until after Royal Assent, it would be wrong to say that further views will not be taken into account.
	First, those who feel aggrieved because they were prevented attending meetings have the right to complain. That is one issue and can be addressed in the appropriate way. Secondly, they can also send in their views. People should not wait until the process is finished and then say that they want more soundings. As that would be unreasonable and could be considered a delaying tactic I could not agree to it. All I am saying is that if you have a view, send it in.

Baroness Hanham: I know that we debated the subject of the soundings earlier and I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do not believe that we ever tested out how the general electorate were to know about the whole matter of the soundings. "Discreet" can also mean "silent", as well as all the other words that the Minister used to describe it. If there is any evidence at all of the soundings exercise taking place, it is very limited, but it seems to confine itself to the regional assemblies sending out the odd newsletter. It is not the regional assemblies who will vote on the matter but the electorate. I believe that we need to test out a little more how the soundings exercise is encompassing the electorate.
	Moving on to the amendment, it is possible that, as a result of these rather dubious soundings exercises, the Deputy Prime Minister will decide at some stage that there is sufficient interest. For one or two reasons, he may not make an order for a fairly long time. By then, all the evidence may have changed and people may have completely different views. Indeed, if the electorate were tested, a different view might result from that.
	Therefore, here we are not talking about the immediate soundings, which have now concluded, but whether the Secretary of State would take another round of soundings if there were a fairly long gap between these soundings and an order being made.

Lord Waddington: I want to pick up a point made by my noble friend about the soundings exercise which worries me greatly. I shall refer later, during debate on other amendments, to a most extraordinary letter written by the chief executive of the North West Regional Assembly to Lancashire County Council. One passage in that letter reads:
	"The Lancashire County Council will be aware of the high level of public interest in the North West region with regard to a referendum on elected regional government".
	That statement is entirely unsupported by the evidence. I know of not a single well-attended meeting; I know of no reputable letters to the press; and I know of no campaigns or anything at all which suggest that there is a high level of interest.
	I also have in my possession a letter written by the CBI to people who are interested in this issue. The CBI points out that it recently withdrew from the North West Regional Assembly because it was obvious that the assembly had not the faintest knowledge of development issues and was wasting its and everyone else's time.
	I want to know whether the Secretary of State will place any reliance on such obviously self-serving statements emanating from so-called "assemblies". I should have thought that common sense dictates that one can listen to representations from all kinds of people but the last representations to which one should pay attention are those emanating from bodies which have a vested interest in seeing that there are elected regional assemblies and which campaign to bring them about, even though they know perfectly well that in an area such as the North West there is no interest in the matter whatever.

Lord Dixon: Before my noble friend rises to reply, I want to say that there is much interest in the North East. In fact, I read in one local newspaper that the Deputy Prime Minister had received responses from the North East assembly members, local authorities, MPs and MEPs, public, private and voluntary sector bodies, political parties, the arts, universities, colleges, black minority ethnic communities, faiths, charities and trade unions, the health sector and transport bodies. Probably the only thing not to have been consulted is the ship's cat at Swan Hunter.
	I can understand the exchanges that took place on the previous occasion that we were in Committee, when my noble friend Lord Stoddart and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said that Peers had not been consulted. But I was consulted—through the political party. I can understand my noble friend Lord Stoddart not being consulted through his political party because he belongs to none, but I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, did not attend the Conservative Party's meetings. I can understand that Cross-Benchers say that they have not been consulted because they are not affiliated to a political party. However, I cannot understand the Liberal Democrat Members of this House saying that they have not been consulted because I assume that they can attend their political party meetings. Therefore, it is a nonsense to suggest that there has not been proper consultation. Everyone in the North East has been consulted.
	It is said that there is a great movement in the North East for an elected regional assembly. There is also a movement against such an assembly in the North East. I believe that the chairman or chief executive of one body—someone called Herron—was one of the metric martyrs. I believe that has more to do with the European boundaries than it has to do with the regional assembly. Therefore, I can assure my noble friend that there is a great deal of interest, and many people and organisations in the North East have been consulted.

Lord Elliott of Morpeth: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon, and many other people have suggested that there is a great deal of interest in having a regional assembly in the North East of England. But, two weeks ago, the principal regional newspaper in that area—The Journal—conducted a poll on the state of the region. The straight question put to those who took part was: "Are you in favour of regional government?" Forty-five per cent of respondents were against, 35 per cent for and 20 per cent did not know. That appears to be the up-to-date position in the North East of England.

Lord Rooker: I want to stick to the amendments, if I can, otherwise I shall make the same speech about 10 times. I know that Parliament is no longer reported in the media as it used to be, but the Bill has not turned up here out of nowhere; it has come from the House of Commons, where it was debated at length freely and not behind closed doors. Those who have an interest in these matters will clearly be aware that that was happening, and people cannot claim that they did not know what was going on in Parliament. That is my first point.
	Secondly, the distribution list for the soundings document was extensive, although it could probably have been more so. I have not seen, and to the best of my knowledge nor have other Ministers, any of the responses to the soundings because at present they are being analysed by officials. A judgment will not be made until after the Bill has received Royal Assent. Therefore, there will be no issues relating to what the Secretary of State may think or do. Those who send in their views are obviously at liberty to publish them. That is right and it will be known if people do that.
	The issue concerns soundings about whether or not to hold a referendum on an elected regional assembly; they are not soundings about a regional assembly. The two things are different. If, as a result of the soundings, and following Royal Assent of the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a judgment that there should be a referendum in at least one region—that is, the boundary review is triggered in advance of the referendum—that will cause another Bill to go through Parliament in order to set up the regional assembly.
	Therefore, I cannot give an answer to the noble Baroness's question about the gap between the initial soundings that we are carrying out now, leading to a judgment after Royal Assent perhaps later this summer, and what might happen the second time round if there is a referendum—I do not know how many referendums there will be. We are talking about a period which extends well beyond this Parliament and across the next general election.
	There may be a case for saying that we cannot rely on soundings taken three or more years ago as the situation has changed. We shall introduce legislation to set up a regional assembly on the assumption that a referendum produces a "yes" vote and we shall see how that goes. It could be held to be unreasonable to use soundings that were taken in advance of any regional assembly being set up. One may be set up, but soundings may change and therefore another exercise might be carried out. That is a purely hypothetical question for us to consider this morning.

Lord Waddington: The noble Lord would start the day happily for us and get us all in a good temper if he would at least give the undertaking that he will advise his Secretary of State to put in the waste paper basket the ridiculous self-serving statements from assemblies which are campaigning for regional assemblies. Surely it is ridiculous that any attention should be paid to them at all.

Lord Rooker: I give my colleagues in the department lots of advice as a result of the deliberations in this House. I have to spell out the facts of life we must deal with. It is good education for them to listen to things that are said. It is true that the soundings are about whether or not to have a referendum and not about being for or against regional assemblies. If people write in on that basis clearly it is outwith the soundings.
	The soundings exercise is quite specific regarding whether there is a desire to have a referendum. It is an entirely different matter if people are already out there campaigning on the assembly issue. That cannot feature in a judgment of the soundings when the Secretary of State makes a Statement to Parliament, which presumably I would repeat in this House. The judgment must be based on the specific issues raised in the soundings about having a referendum, not about having a regional assembly.

Baroness Blatch: I know the noble Lord understands this point because we have made it previously. He has always respected other arguments in debates. We thank him for that. The Bill gives us no detail. Therefore, we can deal only with hypothetical situations that may arise. We have absolutely nothing else to go on. We have a White Paper, much of it jargon and difficult to understand. We have asked in earlier debates about what this or that means; we have been told to wait and see. So we simply do not know.
	It is not true to say that the soundings are not about a referendum. They are about a referendum. They are not for a referendum, which is the noble Lord's argument. This is not about whether this is a vote for or against a referendum, but, "Do you want a regional assembly?" We know that the question will be, "Is there any interest in this area for a regional assembly?" We also know that we shall not have some scientific understanding of what those soundings mean.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon, talked eloquently about the North East, an area for which I have enormous affection. I was sponsor Minister for the North East for a long time. I know many people there. I must say with some sadness that there is enormous pressure on this House to complete the Bill by 8th May.
	We all know that the North East is the only area on which the Government are concentrating at the moment. We know that there is a preponderance of Ministers from the North East. Further, when the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, explained who responded to the soundings, we noted that Joe Public did not feature in any example he gave. A good number of organisations mentioned by the noble Lord were government-sponsored, and chief among them, actively campaigning and I believe illicitly spending taxpayers' money, is the North East Assembly.
	I am sorry, but Joe Public does not know about this matter. Personally, as a Member of this House, if we did not happen to have a Bill before us that tells me these things I would not know about the soundings either. Of course the political parties in the North East know all about them, but the political parties in many other parts of the country have not been formally approached. It is simply not true to say that there has been proper public consultation consistent with the conventions on how one should consult. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, this is about the electors—the people in the streets up and down our country who will be exercising their votes.
	The most important constitutional point I want to make is that we know nothing about this part of the Bill or that an exercise has taken place. I must say to the noble Lord that I would not have used the word "discreet" because this has been a nonentity for large parts of the country. People are unaware of the soundings; they do not know of meetings being held; they know very little; their opinions are not sought. I would not have known. The noble Lord has given a fulsome apology that Peers in this House were not part of the consultation. That was absolutely extraordinary. Until the situation changes by diktat, we are Members of Parliament. We should have been informed and our opinions sought.
	I return to the constitutional point. This part of the Bill triggers some serious, expensive, extremely painstaking and lengthy reorganisation on paper of local government as to the level of interest in an area determined by the Secretary of State on the basis of his own opinion. Therefore, the level of interest, as set out in the Bill, is absolutely crucial. We want a more scientific measurement of that interest; we want to know whether—as stated on the face of the Bill—Section 12 can be triggered up to two years later. Up to two years later there may well be a different opinion.
	The noble Lord says there is nothing to measure the interest against. That is a give-away. The soundings have taken place: there must be something to measure against. That becomes the basis against which either interest has flagged or interest has increased. Therefore, there must be something to measure against. It would be very helpful if we, as parliamentarians, had some understanding of what that level of interest was; how it was measured; and whether large tranches of the country were left out of the consultation.
	I cannot over-emphasise the importance of this matter. We know that there is pressure on this House and on those who are working hard to finish the Committee stage by Monday so that the Bill can be on the statute book by 8th May. There is also a rumour that Mr Prescott is ready to go. Guess in which part of the country? The North East, where all his friends are and where there have been conversations with activists who are pro-regional assemblies and where the man in the street is not being given a chance. The only time Joe Public was asked for his opinion—my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth, who lives in and knows the North East very well, gave this away—occurred when a respected local newspaper ascertained that more people were against a regional assembly than for one.
	The noble Lord will say, "That's all right. They will be able to express that view in a referendum". But what the referendum triggers is absolutely crucial. We want to know more about it. The amendment cannot be taken in isolation. It is part of a package of amendments. We want to know what the criteria are; we want to know how interest is measured; and we want to have before Parliament a scientific understanding of what those soundings told the Deputy Prime Minister and on what basis he will determine which part of the country, to start with, shall be given an opportunity to vote, not for a regional assembly but to vote about a regional assembly. This is so important that I seek the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 86.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 19 to 23 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I call Amendment No. 24.

Baroness Blatch: Did the noble Lord call Amendment No. 20?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I announced earlier that it was pre-empted.

Baroness Blatch: I apologise; I missed the fact that it had been pre-empted. I thought that I was jumping the gun on the Liberal Democrat amendment.
	Amendment No. 24 would ensure that the Secretary of State could call a referendum in a region only if he had first issued a certificate stating that there had been no activity by the regional chamber or development agency during the course of the previous year intended to influence the result of the referendum.
	We know that such activity takes place. I know that the Minister must be circumspect because, if there is to be any judicial review of that activity, it would be entirely wrong of him to say anything now. However, I am not asking him to judge whether I am right or wrong about the existence of such activity. The amendment simply states that a certificate should be issued. If it turns out that I am right—that such activity has been taking place, that it is illicit and precedes Parliament's authority, and that it has involved public funding—that is serious. That creates a prejudice in favour of regional assemblies that does not favour those waiting and acting lawfully until there is authority by Parliament to engage in the debate about whether there should be a referendum to determine whether a regional assembly is set up.
	It is common sense that taxpayers' money should not be used to fund a "Yes" campaign. It should not fund such a campaign once it is lawful, because, unless there is a level playing field for opponents and supporters of a regional assembly, the referendum would be considered one-sided, as happens in European campaigns. That would be unjust and unfair to the electorate as a whole.
	Even if a majority favoured regional assemblies, it would be better to spend money on public services rather than on costly campaigns, certainly at this stage. As the noble Lord said at many of our meetings, we are well ahead of an actual regional assembly being set up. If a "Yes" campaign gathered momentum at this stage, it would trigger spending of large sums of money until the electorate vote on whether they want a regional assembly. A failsafe way to prevent such behaviour would be to disallow a referendum if any illicit campaigning had taken place. It would render the referendum abortive; therefore, another one would have to be held. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: I support the amendment. It would provide a useful safeguard against malpractice. I am bound to say that some things have happened recently concerning the North West Regional Assembly that incline one to believe that safeguards may be necessary. I referred a short time ago to a remarkable letter addressed by the chief executive of the North West Regional Assembly to the chief executive of Lancashire County Council. In paragraph 3 of the letter, the writer seeks to rebut the charge that the North West Regional Assembly has been using public money to campaign for elected regional government, but he seems to make a poor fist of doing so.
	The chief executive quotes a resolution passed by the North West Regional Assembly on 11th January 2002,
	"we, the North West Regional Assembly declare our intention to become an elected Regional Government".
	He then quotes from a press release apparently issued immediately after the resolution. It referred to the fact that the resolution was a decision,
	"to campaign for a referendum in the Region at the earliest opportunity to give people in the North West their say on whether they want directly elected Regional Government".
	Extraordinarily, he then says:
	"The press release was no part of a campaign".
	Well, he could have fooled me.
	I was shocked to discover that Lancashire County Council gave £47,470 to the North West Regional Assembly, which it now refuses to return. It even has the effrontery to assert that Lancashire County Council cannot withhold its payments for 2003–04. I hope that the extraordinary behaviour of the North West Regional Assembly will be widely publicised and that every council taxpayer in Lancashire knows of the assembly's use of their money.
	I wish to ask the Minister this: I am at a loss to understand what right regional assemblies set up under the 1998 Act have to call themselves assemblies. I see nothing in the Act to suggest that they can. I am afraid to say that the behaviour of the North West Regional Assembly shows that it is all too easy for such a body to use a change of name to fool the public into believing that it represents them, when it represents nobody but itself. That nonsense must be stopped. I would like a straight answer to that question.
	The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 provides for the setting up of chambers but there is nothing whatever in that Act to suggest that those chambers can masquerade as assemblies. Yet that is what they are doing, and it is obvious why. They are masquerading as assemblies because, as such, they look like the heirs apparent to elected assemblies. They are lying to the public.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Buried in the labyrinthine corridors of the huge empire now improperly known as the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—no office was ever so elephantine in its dimensions—are the Government Offices for the Regions. What do they do? What is their relationship to this? Are they promotion agents for regional government? From some points of view, regional government would be satisfactory. It would take government much further away from the people and make it even more difficult to understand.
	I understand that governments live in an atmosphere of muddle. But my noble friends have persuaded me that, in this case, it is not muddle, it is deliberate camouflage. By masterpieces of conjuring, they are going to impose regional government on us all without explaining it, and without any knowledge on the part of the vast majority of the electorate.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is important from the Government's own point of view that they get this right. Referendums will not be seen as binding or fair if, before they take place, a great accumulation of money has been spent on one side of the argument. That happened in Wales. Much money was spent to promote an assembly for Wales, and only a minute fraction of it was spent on the opposite campaign. Much of the money spent on the "Yes" campaign came from public sources. So taxpayers and ratepayers who opposed a Welsh assembly were forced to pay for propaganda against their own point of view. That simply cannot be fair; it cannot be allowed to happen. That is why the amendment is so important.
	I know that the Minister is aware of the problem and has tried to deal with it. The Minister responsible for local government has already made a statement that public funds may not be used to campaign at this or any other stage on one side of the argument. Mr Herron, who was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dixon, and others have taken out actions against local authorities that have engaged in one-sided propaganda using ratepayers' money. I know that the Minister is concerned about it, and I hope that he will give assurances that he will stamp on any authority or person using public money on one side of the argument.
	It is legitimate for people to engage in an argument at this stage, if they use their own money or money that they have collected. That is legitimate, and I would support it. However, I am certainly against the use of public money on one side of the argument. It happens far too much. It happened in Malta, for example, where they have just had a referendum. The European Commission and the Maltese Government spent 20 times as much public money, including some of our taxpayers' money, on one side of the argument and still did not get a majority of the electorate to vote for their point of view.

Baroness Hanham: We debated this briefly on the previous day in Committee. I have struggled to find it in Hansard, but I am fairly certain that I recall the Minister saying—he will correct me, if I am wrong—that investigations of the regional assemblies by the Minister for Housing had indicated that public money had not been used to campaign. However, I know of no money spent by regional assemblies that does not come from the taxpayer.
	Can the Minister say where any additional money comes from? I am sure that he said that they were satisfied that it was not taxpayers' money. I meant to challenge him at the time, and I wonder how he could be so sure, when my inquiries have shown that regional assemblies are basically funded by government and local government.

Lord Greaves: The debate has raised two questions. The first is whether there is a problem, and the second is whether the amendment is an appropriate way to deal with any such problem.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I have followed with interest the arguments between Lancashire County Council and the North West Regional Assembly over publicity and campaigning and whether the regional assembly has transgressed the line between the two. It is a matter of distinguishing between legitimate publicity and impermissible campaigning, to use the words in the letter from the North West Regional Assembly to Mr Trinick, the chief executive of Lancashire County Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, referred. Local authorities—the North West Regional Assembly is not composed only of local authorities, but it is basically an assembly of local authorities in the region—have always to ask themselves that question, when they take a view on a matter of public controversy and wish to promote that view. It is not an unknown problem, and local authorities throughout the country deal with it week by week. It is not a difficult problem; it is simply distinguishing between legitimate publicity and impermissible campaigning.
	In Lancashire, it is not just a question of whether and in what way the North West Regional Assembly has transgressed the line; it is also a question of whether Lancashire County Council and other local authorities in the region have also transgressed. I am not sure that Cheshire has taken a clear position in the way in which Lancashire has; perhaps it has. My district authority, Pendle Borough Council, has decided that, given the information to hand about what is in the Bill and the White Paper, it does not wish the North West to go ahead in the first tranche of referendums. In effect it is the same position as Lancashire County Council has taken up .
	So, what can the borough council do? There are motions on which it can vote, and it can issue press statements giving its view. Is that illegitimate? If so, it calls into question a large amount of the publicity activity carried out by local authorities throughout the country week by week. The leader of Lancashire County Council has written articles condemning the Bill, saying that Lancashire wants no part of it and disagreeing with the position taken up by the North West Regional Assembly.

Lord Waddington: Will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Greaves: I shall not, as I may be answering the question that the noble Lord is about to ask. If not, I shall give way in a moment.

Lord Waddington: Will the noble Lord give way later?

Lord Greaves: Certainly. The point that I was about to make—I suspect that it is the point that the noble Lord was about to make—is that there is a distinction between activities undertaken by individuals who happen to hold a position in an authority and the activities of the authority itself. A great deal of the promotional activity of the North West Regional Assembly has been undertaken not by the assembly but by, for example, Derek Boden, the leader of the North West Regional Assembly. He has the right to campaign in the region as an individual, even if, at the meetings at which he speaks, he describes himself as the chairman of the North West Regional Assembly.

Lord Waddington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Surely, one can assume that a statement in a press release that the assembly is campaigning for a referendum in the region is correct.

Lord Greaves: The noble Lord is a lawyer, and I am not.

Lord Waddington: They are plain words.

Lord Greaves: They may be.

Baroness Blatch: If the press release came from the assembly, that would be the assembly speaking, albeit supported by the leader of the assembly.

Lord Greaves: That is the point that I was making. Local authorities throughout the country issue press releases.

Baroness Blatch: There is an important distinction. The assembly does not have the authority, whereas the local authorities have authority in their own right. They are elected authorities, and that gives them the authority to concern themselves with their own institutions. The assembly represents lots of other bodies, including some of the local authorities in the region. I understand that Lancashire County Council has withdrawn, but the assembly speaks in the name of all the other bodies. It does not have the authority to spend campaigning money in that way.

Lord Greaves: As I understand it, the laws restricting overt campaigning by the regional assembly are the same laws as restrict overt campaigning by local authorities. I think that that responds to both interventions, but, if I am wrong about that, I will be pleased to be corrected.
	I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who asked what right the North West Regional Assembly had to give itself that name. A long time ago, when it was originally formed, I was a member of the North West Regional Assembly, representing one of the local authorities. It was called a regional assembly long before the concept of regional chambers was put into the law of the land, and it merely continued with the same name. I am not sure that there is a huge issue of principle there.
	I do not know whether the North West Regional Assembly has stepped over the line. Equally, I do not know whether Lancashire County Council has stepped over the line or whether Essex County Council has stepped over the line in opposing what is proposed. If local authorities step over the line, there are remedies and ways they can be stopped. That is what should happen.
	My second question is: is Amendment No. 24 the way to deal with a problem? I think not. It is clumsy; it is over the top. To conduct an investigation to determine whether two particular bodies in the region—not all the other bodies in the region might be involved in campaigning, including local authorities—have carried out activities which they do not have the power to carry out seems clumsy and over the top. The amendment is a way of raising the issue in Committee, but it is not sensible to include it in the Bill.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have an implicit trust in the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the Minister in charge of the Bill in this House. I would believe almost anything he told me under any circumstances. However, I have past experience with some of his colleagues and I am conscious that some of them are associated with legislation introduced by this Government. I incline my head towards the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I recall that during discussions on the National Lottery etc. Bill, which the then opposition welcomed, it was said that if we had a desire to redistribute lottery funds in different directions, there would be a debate in the House of Commons and the Government would take note of that.
	When the present Government were elected in 1997, they immediately consulted on whether there were other uses to which lottery funds might be put. Not surprisingly, of 600 responses to the consultation, 540, I believe, were from producer-interests not then in receipt of lottery funds who said it would be an extremely good idea if lottery funds were distributed to them. In a sense it was a question answering itself.
	I have some sympathy with the scepticism my noble friend Lady Blatch shows towards the process we are going through. Some Members of the Committee were present at the exhibition of Durer at the British Museum today where I learnt for the first time that although the elephant was to be found in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries, the rhinoceros has not been seen in Europe since the third century. Yet Durer, on the basis of information given to him by travellers from distant lands, was able to produce a fairly accurate picture of a rhinoceros.
	If it is true that while debating a Bill entitled Regional Assemblies (Preparations) regional assemblies are already in existence—as my noble friend Lord Waddington implied and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, did not seem to deny—the mythology that they are associated with Durer's rhinoceros is in some danger of being repeated. I am happy to support my noble friend.

Lord Rooker: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his first few sentences. This is an important issue and one which I hoped I had laid to rest, both at Question Time and in previous debates. But I failed; I shall therefore try again. There is an important distinction to be made on Amendment No. 24, which refers to the period of 12 months before the referendum. It states:
	"neither the Regional Chamber nor the Regional Development Agency . . . have carried out any activities which they do not have power to carry out".
	That is important.
	The Government genuinely believe that the provisions are unnecessary. The two organisations mentioned—I shall deal with them separately—are quite different in their responsibilities and their origins. The regional development agencies are non-departmental public bodies of the Department of Trade and Industry. They act within the constraints of legislation under which they were established—namely, the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. Because of their status they are audited by the National Audit Office and they are subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee—indeed, the only Select Committee on which I served—I am a big supporter of the National Audit Office and the kind of scrutiny it carries out. It is an excellent committee. Its members hunt as a pack. There are no party divisions in the PAC. As no Minister appears as a witness, they coalesce to give the civil servants a bashing. That is basically the theory.
	My point is that the regional development agencies are not in a position to carry out activities outside their powers. To ask the Secretary of State to issue a certificate when the PAC and the National Audit Office are their watchdogs is way beyond what we should be doing.
	The regional chambers are a different kettle of fish. They are not statutory bodies; they are voluntary bodies. They have been designated for the purposes of the 1990 Act, but they are not statutory bodies. Each has its own constitution. They receive grants—

Lord Waddington: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The Minister is right. Section 8 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 states:
	"If the Secretary of State is of the opinion . . . that there is a body which is representative of those in a regional development agency's area with an interest in its work, and . . . that the body is suitable to be given the role of regional chamber for the agency, he may by directions to the agency designate the body as the regional chamber for the agency".
	Therefore, by designating the body, it is actually a statutory body.

Lord Rooker: I shall take advice, but I disagree with that. The matter of the designation does not alter the voluntary nature of the body. They are as different as chalk and cheese from the regional development agencies in the legal framework in which they are set up.
	The money aspect obviously concerns Members of the Committee. The voluntary bodies—namely, the chambers—receive grants from central government and have the powers to act as the regional planning bodies under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently being discussed in another place. In addition, they receive funds from local government. I do not know from where else they might receive funds. I believe it will be just central and local government.
	What they do with the local government money is entirely up to them. I repeat that if it is misspent and misused, the complaint ought to be to the district auditor. What they do with the grant from my department is different altogether. After the allegations were made, Nick Raynsford, the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place, made it clear and put it on record that,
	"The accountable body [the chamber] may not use any grant paid under this funding agreement"—
	from the department—
	"for expenditure falling within any of the following categories—
	(a) expenditure on activities of a political or exclusively religious nature e.g. campaigning for, publicising and promoting the case for an elected regional assembly".
	I know that it is almost Orwellian that they are chambers which are converting themselves into assemblies. They are voluntary bodies; in effect, they could probably call themselves whatever they want. All the concentration seems to be on "our friends in the North". But the regional chamber in the South East is in no way "our friends in the South"; it is "your friends in the South", if I may put it in that colloquial way. It is a Conservative-led regional assembly in the south-east of England.
	It is the chamber but has decided to call itself the regional assembly for whatever reason. The reasons may be those given by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I do not know. I have had no contact with it and I have not seen any of its correspondence. So far as I know it is not in favour of elected regional assemblies. It is calling itself the regional assembly, but it is the chamber. It is entitled to do that. What it cannot do is spend the money from the taxpayers—by which I mean my department—on such campaigning. What it does with the money from the council tax payers that comes from local government is another matter. If that is considered to be wrong, as I have previously said from this Dispatch Box, a complaint should be made to the district auditor and the necessary inquiries will be made.
	I do not know whether any complaints have been made. As regards my department, I know of no chamber going outside it. They have been informed of what Nick Raynsford said and we expect them to follow that.
	Essentially, the chambers are voluntary bodies and can call themselves what they want. While it might be thought Orwellian or slipping through under the door to call themselves regional assemblies in advance of being set up, that is their choice. However, despite all the correspondence from and debates with Members on the Benches opposite, it is clear that open warfare is going on in those regions. That both underlines and undermines our previous debate; namely, that no one knows anything about this Bill. We see county councils having a go at each other and exchanging letters in the press. How can it be said that no one knows about this legislation?
	I think that the amendment is unnecessary. While I understand why it has been tabled, I say again that the two bodies are quite different. Furthermore, as regards the regional development agencies, the Committee should rely on the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to ensure that the rules are followed. Once more, I emphasise the fact that the district auditor should look at any complaints concerning the alleged misuse of local government money.

The Earl of Caithness: The Minister has been extremely helpful in clarifying the amendment. I am no longer as concerned as I was about the RDAs. However, I am still concerned about the regional chambers or assemblies—whatever they like to call themselves.
	First, I do not share the relaxed attitude adopted by the Minister that it is possible to separate completely the grant given by his department to these bodies and the council tax moneys given to them by local authorities. How can regional chambers be condemned for spending the grant given to them by the Minister when he is not prepared to condemn them for spending council tax money on an illicit purpose? Will the Minister condemn any regional chamber or assembly for spending money in the way set out in the amendment that derives either from his department or from the local council tax?
	Secondly, can the Minister go into a little more detail about the role of the district auditor? If a situation arises where money has been used wrongfully in lobbying either for or against an elected regional assembly, the matter is referred to the district auditor. What happens then? Has provision been made to provide a brake on the proposed referendum? Perhaps I may take the Minister with me on this point. Let us take a situation where money has been used wrongly and the matter sent to the district auditor, whereupon the auditor rules against the regional chamber. What happens then? Surely at that point one ought to say, "Right, let us stop whatever we have been doing. Let us take a break so that everyone can get back onto an even keel".

Lord Rooker: I am being invited to condemn the illicit spending of public money and I do so quite freely. By separating the two organisations and making that separation clear, I do not, by implication, support the misuse of money coming from local authorities. In no way do I seek to do that.
	There are two avenues of complaint; namely, if the allegation that the money has been misspent is firm, then there is an avenue for complaint. I suggest that the district auditor should be used because that is the correct avenue. However, I am unaware of anyone having made a formal complaint. Again, I do not say that because we have issued a directive as regards my department's money, it is therefore good to misspend moneys from council tax payers; far from it.
	Looking at the big picture, it would be unreasonable for organisations to be out of the starting blocks campaigning for something that has not yet even been approved by Parliament and using either taxpayers' or council tax payers' money. People rightly would be suspicious and complain about that, in particular if the body concerned was to change its name and give a false impression. However, if that is what has happened, then I do not know about it. No one has contacted me in that regard.
	If someone makes a complaint to a district auditor—I know about this because in the past I have done so myself as a Member of another place—the matter is looked at. If a prima facie case is made for an investigation, it will be done. Believe me when I say that an investigation by the district auditor is very onerous on those who are the subject of such an inquiry. It is taken extremely seriously by chief executives of local authorities and, it is hoped, would be taken equally seriously by a regional assembly. An adverse report from a district auditor is quite a serious matter and certainly would be made known to the public. It could damage the reputation of the individuals concerned; it could damage the organisation and it could even damage what the organisation was seeking to campaign about.
	However, so far as I know, no one has made any allegations. We have invited such allegations on more than one occasion and I do so again today.

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister for his first answer. Perhaps I may press him a little further on his second response. Let us assume that after a thorough investigation the district auditor finds evidence of misdeeds. Does the Minister agree that, because of the misspent money, that would be the time to halt the process of the referendum?

Lord Rooker: I cannot answer the noble Earl because, to be honest, the response must come from my learned friends. I simply do not know; there are too many hypotheticals in the question.
	The central issue is that the amendment talks about a period of 12 months before the order is laid. The period for the referendum itself—that is, the contest for the "Yes" vote or the "No" vote, if I may put it that way—is very short. I think the Referendum Act 1975 stipulates something in the order of 10 weeks. So to lay the order 12 months beforehand presents a problem as regards interference with the timing.
	As I have said, I do not know the answer to the question put by the noble Earl. We are still in Committee. I shall seek to obtain better advice on it so that, if not at this stage then on Report, I will be able to respond to him more fully. The noble Earl is entitled to as good and detailed an answer as we can give, but I am not in a position to do that off the top of my head.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I have a brief question which has not been raised in this debate. Indeed, it goes slightly further than the amendment. I do not wish to impute any dishonour to the bishops in this matter, but one does hear that a number of these assemblies, or however they are known, are chaired by bishops of the Church of England. In those circumstances I think it regrettable that so far no right reverend Prelate has helped us in our deliberations on the amendments.
	Does the Minister have anything to say to the Committee about the involvement of bishops in this matter? It could be that their presence would influence the outcome of a referendum. For some of us, the duties that they have been undertaking appear to go beyond what is normally regarded as the divine.

Lord Rooker: So far as I know, as citizens, bishops have the right to vote. They do not hang up their democratic rights when they take on the role of a bishop. As I recall, the Constitutional Convention that operated in Scotland, where the level of political debate was so much more mature than in England on issues of voting systems, was chaired by a member of the clergy, although I cannot remember his precise role. The bishops are here to speak for themselves.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I think that there is an issue on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Some of the meetings have been chaired by bishops. At those meetings, only one side of the argument has been put. Anyone suspected, if I may put it that way, of wanting to put the other side of the argument has been excluded. That is the problem here. Bishops are held in high regard and are respected. One would expect them to see to it that both sides of the argument are put. However, that has not been the case.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may help the Minister on a point of detail. One of the chairmen of the Constitutional Convention in Scotland was a canon of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, a non-established church. He was not a bishop and it was a non-established church. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord.

Lord Rooker: So far as I am concerned, he is a member of the clergy. That was the point I sought to make; I was not going to detail the circumstances in Scotland.
	I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I do not know who chaired those meetings or whether anyone was prevented from speaking. I cannot answer for the Government on these issues because we are not responsible for them. There are avenues for dealing with complaints about the process.
	I do not know whether the allegations have been made against right reverend Prelates who are Members of the House or against other bishops. When they are in their places in due course, one assumes that they will speak for themselves. There is a Starred Question on this issue on the Order Paper today. Perhaps one of them will turn up to speak to it.

Baroness Blatch: I do not intend to enter the discussion about the role of the bishops except in so far as it is interesting to note that a number of them have spoken in this House in favour of regional assemblies. It is depressing not to see at least some of them taking part in our debates because they have been involved in this issue.
	The only further point I would add, without getting into the nuts and bolts of the point made by my noble friend Lord Pearson, is that it is not bishops as individuals that we are talking about but bishops in their role of leading the conventions. There is no law against that; under the law they are free to take the chair. But we have heard—again it is rumour and I cannot confirm it—that, in order to attend convention meetings chaired by bishops, one has to express an interest in having regional government. That also smacks of being one-sided.
	My amendment relates to one-sided campaigning. The Minister said that it relates to process and that we are not here to talk about process, but most of the amendments on the Marshalled List relate to process and to ensuring that it is as fair as it can be in enabling people to make up their minds, quite freely, whether or not they want local government upheaval and the introduction of regional assemblies.
	My noble friend Lord Waddington has given an enormous amount of evidence that campaigning is taking place. We know that it is taking place in the North East. We also know that the "Yes" lobby has access to public funds. There is a question mark as to whether it is using public funds to—

Lord Dixon: Does the noble Baroness accept that campaigning is taking place on both sides? There is a campaign against a regional assembly in the North East and there is a campaign for one. There are two sides.

Baroness Blatch: I know that. Such has been the intensity of the "Yes" campaign in the North East that it has driven-up "No" campaign activity. But the "No" campaign has no recourse to, and no authority to use, public funding. It has to campaign privately and it must raise its own funding. A number of noble Lords have equated it to European elections where, if you want to oppose something, you have to find your own funding; if you want to support it, you have recourse to public funds. That is the point I am making about the one-sided nature of the system. My next point would have been that the "No" campaigns do not have access to public funds.
	As to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I do not know whether bodies are overstepping the line in terms of legality. My amendment seeks to address that issue. It seeks to ensure that, before making an order, the Secretary of State should satisfy himself that there has been no illicit activity.
	The Minister quite rightly pointed out that there are remedies for deciding whether or not moneys have been spent properly—that is, legally—through the district auditor and through the Public Accounts Committee. I am not arguing against that. But if the Public Accounts Committee or the district auditor were to find that there had been wrong-doing, there still would be no obligation on the Secretary of State to take that into account when determining whether or not an order should be made. But, if wrongdoing has been established by the district auditor—and I know that the district auditor is being asked to look into expenditure in the North East—that should indicate to the Secretary of State that the procedure has been unfair and has created an unlevel playing field.
	The Minister pointed out, again quite rightly, the distinction between the regional development agencies and the chambers. It is true that they are different and that the regional development agencies gain their authority directly from primary legislation, but it is not true to say that the chambers are not statutory bodies. They are established under, and derive their powers from, the Regional Development Agencies Act, as my noble friend Lord Waddington pointed out. They receive public moneys, are accountable to the Public Accounts Committee and to Parliament, and have direct formal and informal links to the regional development agencies. So that is not an argument against the amendment.
	The Minister referred to bodies in the South East and the South West being in Conservative hands. I hope that I will never be accused of talking about this Bill from a party political point of view. I regard it as being so constitutionally important that it overrides and subordinates totally the issue of party politics. I do not care whether the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or whoever controls these bodies; my concern is the constitutional arrangements of this country. If members of the public are to be invited to express a view on whether or not they want a regional assembly in their area, public money should not be spent by bodies with a vested interest on campaigning for a "Yes" vote while those without all the information necessary to make a decision are left to their own devices to create an opposition body.
	The amendment seeks to ensure that, if there has been one-sided activity by bodies with a vested interest in a "Yes" vote—and if that activity has created a distortion— the Secretary of State should be obliged to make a judgment on that issue before making an order under Clause 12. I commend the amendment and wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

Lord Elliott of Morpeth: The Minister is quite right to say that the bishops can speak for themselves. For the record, just over a year ago the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham raised the subject of regional government in a debate. I took part in that debate. I disagreed with the right reverend Prelate, but he did speak for himself.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 114.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 25A:
	Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) No order shall be made under subsection (1) until the Secretary of State has published the results of an independent inquiry into the constitutional and practical effects of regional government on the United Kingdom parliament."

Baroness Blatch: I repeat my point about the haste with which we are being pressured to complete the Bill. In a sense it underlies what I consider to be the very serious constitutional point addressed by my amendment.
	We know that the Government would like nothing better than to have a regional assembly up and running in the shortest possible time: that means the Bill completing its passage by 8th May; an announcement then being made—as we all believe will happen—that the North East has expressed an interest in having a regional assembly; the Boundary Committee then getting on with its work; and a regional assembly being up and running within a year to 18 months.

Lord Rooker: Will the noble Baroness please accept that that is simply not so? I have made it abundantly clear that a regional assembly cannot be set up until after the next general election. The time required for the boundary review, for the referendum and for progress on the main Bill mean that there is no prospect whatever of a regional assembly being up and running this side of the next general election.

Baroness Blatch: First, we do not know when the next general election will take place. I do not doubt the noble Lord's word; I accept it, as I always do. I believe that he made that statement in good faith.
	Will he go one step further and say that there will not be a Clause 12 order within the next 12 months? I do not think that he is able to go that far. Nor do I believe that he is able to say that there will not be a clause 12 order in indecent haste this side of the Summer Recess. I hope, therefore, that I can be forgiven for repeating that, given the dearth of information in the Bill and our constant search for detailed information in the White Paper, we have to make assumptions. One is that there is a great deal of pressure for the Bill to complete its passage quickly. If what the Minister says is true, what is the hurry? Why is there such haste? There can be only one reason; namely, to determine one or more areas of the country as having expressed an interest in having regional government.
	The amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish an independent report considering the constitutional and practical effects that regional assemblies will have on the functioning of Parliament. That is to be done before a referendum is held.
	As we on these Benches have said so many times, it is clear that the Bill has the greatest constitutional significance. It would be foolhardy to embark on such a project without fully weighing up the implications of regional assemblies for our historic Mother of Parliaments.
	It does not need pointing out to those present that the authority and powers of the Westminster Parliament have taken a pretty severe bashing over the past decade. We can no longer, in this House or in another place, ask questions about Scotland—that is an issue for the Scottish Parliament. We can no longer, as Members in this place and another place, ask questions about Wales—that is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. We now cannot ask questions, in this House or in another place, about London—that is a matter for the Mayor of London.
	Wales has its own Assembly, Scotland its own Parliament, and England is to be carved up into nine regions. London has already gone, and the rest of the country is to be carved up into another eight regions. In the worst of all possible worlds, we will get a patchwork, with not all regions having regional assemblies. The emasculation of this place as a parliament will be serious.
	At least we should make sure that any decision that is taken is conscious—an intentional decision made on the basis of knowing all the information. The process in which the people of England are to exercise their power to vote should be open. From what is known of devolution so far, we know that the emasculation effect will be very real.
	The task would also serve to focus the minds of those in local and, more especially, national government on what powers would fall into the remit of regional assemblies and what would remain the responsibility of Westminster. We are still not sure. We have still had no definitive answer as to what specific powers will pass from the Westminster Parliament to the regional assemblies. Most of us on this side are sceptical about what the Minister has said; we know that he is answering for the department, so this is not a personal criticism. We know that powers will be ceded upwards from local authorities to the regions.
	Let us take the Government at their word. They say that real powers will be ceded from the Westminster Parliament to the regional assemblies. Indeed, that is the kind of regional government that the Liberals support, although they will not achieve it through this Bill. If powers will be ceded from the Westminster Parliament, it is fundamental, basic and seriously constitutionally important that we should know what that means for the nature, the character, the powers and the functions of a United Kingdom Parliament.
	We can see already that the clout of the United Kingdom is seriously at risk. We belong to the European Union as an entity, as the United Kingdom, but when a viewpoint is being put in Europe on behalf of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament could say that it does not agree with that line. As my wonderful late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish predicted in this House, it is only a matter of time before Scotland wants its own voice around the European table. But as we split up into regions, we know that some regions of this country, such as the North-East and the South-East, are more pro-Europe than others. Because of their geographic proximity and the way in which the grant system has worked in their favour, there is an empathy. We should not sleepwalk into what I regard as a constitutional situation; we should have thought it out in advance.
	Since 1997, we have passed a good deal of constitutionally important legislation. We tend, as a parliament—and this is a fault—to take each proposition in isolation. We have not really thought through the ramifications of many of these constitutional changes as they will impact on the integrity of the United Kingdom as a whole. I cannot tell your Lordships just how seriously I regard that issue. Before the people of this country are asked to choose whether they want a regional assembly without understanding the ramifications, there should at least be some definitive explanation from the Government as to how they see Parliament serving this country as a United Kingdom parliament when one area, or more, has a regional assembly. So far, we have a vague idea at best. I am stunned that so little is known about the precise nature of what we are embarking upon with the Bill and the constitutional consequences.
	The Minister said that one would think that the Bill had not been through the House of Commons. As a Front-Bench Member in opposition, and even when I was a Minister, I never learned a great deal from Bills that came to this House from the House of Commons, where the guillotine and the pernicious system called the knife are used and large tracts of a Bill are not discussed at all, even cursorily. With regard to the Scottish and Welsh devolution Bills, I am very proud to say that I belong to a part of the Parliament and a part of the parliamentary process that discussed each Bill from the first letter of the first word of the Bill to the last letter of the last word of the Bill, and at every stage of the parliamentary process, without filibustering and without wasting parliamentary time. That cannot be said for another place. Those Bills were barely discussed in another place and the people were asked to vote in a referendum without knowing the detail of how devolution would work in practice.
	I cannot overstate the importance of this issue. I regard this as a key amendment to the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: I recall that on Second Reading the Deputy Prime Minister said:
	"The Bill offers, for the first time in our history, opportunities to the English regions similar to those offered to Scotland, Wales and London".
	Of course, that was absolute nonsense, but at least it shows that the Government are putting forward the Bill as some sort of answer to Scottish devolution. It is a pretty messy and unsatisfactory answer when, at the end of the day, some parts of the country may have elected regional government and some may not.
	What is certain is that if the Deputy Prime Minister was anything like right and if, in time, real powers are devolved to the regions from our Parliament at Westminster at the same time as powers are seized from Parliament and given to Brussels, the role and standing of our Parliament at Westminster will change out of all recognition and will be greatly diminished. Some may wish this to happen but I doubt if there are many. The trouble is that we are, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, sleepwalking into these changes. It is absolutely shocking that these changes should take place without any sort of realisation or any attempt to explain to the public what the end result may well be. It is high time there was a full inquiry on the implications of these changes.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for tabling the amendment, which gives me an opportunity to repeat my question about how the Bill takes forward the European Union's plan for a "Europe of the regions", to the detriment of our national Parliament. How much of our remaining sovereignty will the Bill cede to the corrupt octopus in Brussels? The Government would like to pretend that it will not cede any sovereignty.
	I asked those questions on Second Reading on 20th February at cols. 1302–06 and again in Committee on 13th March at cols. 1455–56, 1471 and 1505–06. In the absence of any real reply from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who had joined me in this line of questioning, was good enough to press the Minister at cols. 1508–09. He asked the Minister whether he was unable or unwilling to answer our questions. The Minister replied:
	"No. I rest my case on what I said and my references to the White Paper. I cannot go beyond what is in the White Paper regarding any of the questions that were raised about the council of the regions"—
	I think he may have meant the Committee of the Regions—
	"the Chancellor's article—which I have not read—the European Union or regional offices. Either something is in the White Paper or the Government have not yet pronounced on it. If we do so in due course, we shall let the House know".—[Official Report, 13/3/03; col. 1509.]
	I can but hope that the Government have thought about this vital question and are now in a position to let us know the truth of the matter.
	By way of background, we should recall how the Minister attempted to head off our line of questioning on Second Reading. He said:
	"There is no requirement from Brussels, the European Union or anywhere else for England to have a structure of regional government. We are not implementing some plan or plot hatched up by Johnny Foreigner to seek to bring in EMU by the back door or in some way channel funds into different regions. There is no EU requirement that member states should have elected regional government. This is a United Kingdom policy to meet United Kingdom needs".—[Official Report, 20/2/03; col. 1251.]
	I think the Committee will agree that that is a firm assurance, but it clearly does not square with the Government's policy as set out in paragraphs 8.19 and 4.31 of the White Paper, which I placed on the record on 13th March. To achieve absolute clarity and to help the Minister with his reply, I fear it is worth placing the salient part of paragraph 4.31 on the record again. It says that the assemblies,
	"will take over the role currently performed by Government Offices on structural funds (including the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and rural programmes) for any structural fund expenditure for future programming periods. This would mean that the assembly will chair the programme monitoring committee, play a key role in drawing up the single programme documents, and lead in negotiations on these programme documents with the European Commission".
	I should like to pin the Minister down. Do the Government intend to implement that part of the White Paper? Will the proposed regional assemblies take over responsibility from central government—from this Parliament—for extracting and spending funds from Brussels? That is my first simple question. I trust that the Minister can answer it with his customary clarity.
	Assuming that the Government intend to follow their White Paper, my second question is also simple. Will this Parliament or the Government of the day enjoy any control over the amount of money that the corrupt octopus in Brussels—or the European Union, as the Minister may prefer to call it—sends to the proposed regions? Will the United Kingdom be able to limit the amount of EU aid that is given to our regions? As I have said before, EU aid is a fraud in any case, because only half of what we send to the crooked filter in Brussels comes back to us as EU aid, and always on projects designed to enhance its own image.
	Be that as it may—and it is—my third question is one that I have asked before without getting a reply, but hope springs eternal, so I shall try once more. Will the new regions come to have their own tax-raising powers? If so, how will those powers relate to Brussels? I hope that the Minister will regard that question as esoteric and fanciful, in which case he will be able to confirm that the proposed regions will not have such powers.
	I repeat my three questions. Do the Government stand by paragraph 4.31 of their White Paper? Will the UK have the power to limit the amount of money thus sent by Brussels to the proposed regions? Will the proposed regions have their own tax-raising powers, and, if so, how will they interface with Brussels? Those three questions seem pretty important to me, because the answers will show how much of our remaining sovereignty the Government are prepared to cede to Brussels under the Bill. It is also information that should clearly be put before the voters in any referendum.

Lord Greaves: I sometimes think it would be helpful if we adopted a new acronym to save time and referred to the corrupt octopus in Brussels as the COB.
	We keep being told that we cannot ask questions in this Parliament about Scotland and Wales. That is partly true. We cannot ask questions about those matters that are devolved, as opposed to those matters that are reserved to this Parliament. There is an important difference, which is clearly relevant to the Bill if any matters are going to be resolved. We are also told that we cannot ask questions about London. At Question Time I sometimes think I am in a meeting of the Westminster parish council rather than a chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament. We have lots of questions about holes in the roads outside this building, the closure of streets in London, congestion charging and all the rest of it, not to mention the Tube.

Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord accept that London is the capital city of this country and the flow of traffic and the ease with which people can get through it and around it are important not simply to Londoners but to the rest of the country? It is a traffic hub for railways and roads. Interest in London is not confined to people in London. Substantially, our questions on these matters are answered with, "This is a matter for the Mayor of London".

Lord Greaves: As an adopted Londoner for part of the week nowadays, I think the noble Baroness makes my point for me. We are allowed to ask questions about London and to discuss them at great length. I sometimes think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is a London commissioner in this House. I am not objecting to the capital city of this country being discussed here, just as I do not object to anybody from any other part of the country wishing to raise matters. I am merely saying that the repeated mantra that we cannot ask questions or discuss these matters is not true.
	There is an important truth at the heart of the amendment, although we cannot support the amendment. In the words of the noble Baroness, we are asked to take each constitutional proposition in isolation from others. There was an attempt, spearheaded in many ways by the Liberal Democrats, when we and the Labour Party were in opposition, to put together a constitutional package that included lots of useful and desirable things such as the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and a move towards proportional representation. An important part of that was the body known as the Cook-Maclennan committee, which produced the Cook-Maclennan report.
	One of our great disappointments—it will not be shared by the Conservatives—has been that the Government, in their constitutional legislation, have come forward with a piecemeal approach and not presented each item of it as part of a wider package or vision for the fundamental reform of the British constitution that our party believes has been and remains necessary. We applaud some of the work done and some of the legislation. We applaud the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. We regret that the Government seem to have substantially run out of steam on their constitutional agenda. The Bill is the last fairly feeble spluttering of that agenda before it finally runs into the sand. It is no secret that we want to beef it up and get it going again.
	There is a kernel of truth at the heart of the amendment, which is that neither the Government nor Parliament are at present looking at the constitutional package as a whole and seeing what the effects will be. Those effects would include the relationship of this country to the European Union, or the COB as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would prefer to call it. We will disagree on how we think that things ought to go. That does not mean to say that there ought not to be such a comprehensive look, but there has not been and we have to take the Bill as it is.
	We do not know what an independent inquiry would be or how it would be set up. The noble Baroness talked about why but not how it would happen. We have to make our own judgments into such matters, which we can perfectly well do. Particularly, we will be able to do it if and when we ever get to a Bill to set up regional government rather than this preparations Bill. The amendment seems premature. If such an independent inquiry were to take place, it ought to be in conjunction with definitive but substantive legislation rather than this paving legislation. On those bases, we would not support the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, with some interest. I understand in a way why he might not support the amendment, yet it seems that there is nothing between his argument and that made by my noble friend on the Front Bench in moving the amendment.
	For the whole of my life, I have seen a steady process of accretion of power into government. My noble friend Lord Pearson talked about the Government perceiving that as UK policy to meet UK needs. In my view it is not UK policy for UK needs, but government policy for government needs. I make a clear distinction between government and Whitehall, between Parliament and the people of this country.
	Behind all the provisions, we do not see a process of real and genuine devolution. The impact of the Bill, if it is passed and the country then accepts it with regional referendums and we finish up with a full regional structure, will mean that there are that many fewer local bodies in the country with which Whitehall has to deal. The counties will go and the districts will go in the shire areas. We will then have nine regions outside London, London itself and a unitary structure down below.
	That is the constitutional effect. Having said that, in the process we will continue the gradual turn of the thumbscrews that has gone on for so long. We will see increasing power in the legislation establishing the new bodies, so that the Government can take more detailed control over what they want the local bodies to do. In a way, the Bill is part of that. It is only paving legislation, but two other Bills are coming through. The Local Government Bill is about to come before us, and another deals with planning and compulsory purchase. That Bill anticipates this Bill in a sense.

Lord Rooker: No, it does not.

Lord Dixon-Smith: It does. It creates a planning structure that assumes that this Bill will be implemented.

Lord Rooker: With the greatest respect, it does no such thing. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill would operate whether this Bill was ever enacted or not. It is not dependent on it.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am happy to have that reassurance, but it almost makes my case worse rather than better. What we are seeing is an increasing ability for the Government to control and direct local authorities, one that has gone on for so long, being extended. If it is not dependent on the Bill, that almost makes it worse because there will be control over existing authorities. One has only to look at what is happening with local government finance, where there is increasingly detailed control and direction, and the physical allocation of more and more of an authority's budget to specific government requirements. That is what is really going on.
	If, at the same time, large parts of the country's business are outwith Parliament's control because of the constitutional precedents that have already been set vis-a-vis Scotland, London and Wales, and there is less and less for Parliament to do, that may be greatly to the Government's convenience. However, I doubt that it is really what we should be doing.
	I shall return to the amendment, which contains the seeds of an interesting idea. It calls for an,
	"inquiry into the constitutional and practical effects of regional government on the United Kingdom parliament".
	However, I am afraid, and my noble friend would agree, that it says nothing about what should happen as a result of that inquiry. If the inquiry is not subsequently debated and its implications accepted by Parliament, there is no point in having it. I make the argument badly. If Parliament does not consider the report and either accept or reject it, there is no point in having the inquiry. That is the point to which we need to come. It is on that that there is congruence between what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and by my noble friend when she moved the amendment.
	I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment at this stage for that reason. Unless we have the power to get some control over the consequences of the cumulative Bills that are going through—piecemeal legislation that is not being considered as a whole—frankly we are missing an opportunity. At the moment, the amendment does not go far enough.

Lord Dixon: The amendment is another delaying tactic. It does not refer to the Bill, but to the referendum. Clause 1 refers to the referendum in a region as to whether there should be a regional assembly.
	I can understand the Conservatives being concerned about the constitution. I noticed earlier a couple of noble Lords who were Cabinet Ministers when I was next-door in the House of Commons and the Maastricht Bill went through. I cannot recall the Conservative government tabling an amendment about the effect that that Bill would have on the constitution. They did not even suggest a referendum. I can understand why they did not have a referendum on the Maastricht Bill—they could not even get the present leader of the Tory party to vote in favour of it. To come along now and make that suggestion is, quite honestly, another delaying tactic. The Conservatives are opposed to regional government. They have been honest about that. Why did they not vote against that at Second Reading? If the amendment were agreed to, it would delay the referendum.
	I turn to the northern region. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, referred to a poll but I will refer to another two polls. The first is the County Councils Network/ICM poll of the northern region. On support for holding referendum, it found that 60 per cent were in favour and 21 per cent against and on support for establishing an assembly, 51 per cent were in favour and only 13 per cent were against. The Durham county council consultation received 7,000 responses and found that 66 per cent were in favour of a referendum and only 24 per cent against. On establishing an assembly, it found that 66 per cent were in favour and only 24 per cent against. That shows the feelings of the people in the North East.

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, but will he tell us the provenance of that survey?

Lord Dixon: One was the County Councils Network/ICM poll and the other was the Durham County Council consultation. The one to which I referred earlier, by the way, was published in the Newcastle Journal.

Lord Hanningfield: Having been involved in that poll, I point out that one needs to see the whole poll before quoting any part of it. That is the same with any poll. In the poll, people were not against having a referendum. When one asked whether or not they wanted a region, the cost of the region or what the region would be in terms of area, the percentages went down. It might be appropriate to quote the whole poll rather than just parts of it.

Lord Dixon: The best way to test that is to pass the Bill and have a referendum in the various regions.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This is an interesting amendment but whether it should be put to a vote I do not know. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, expressed some reservations.
	My noble friend Lord Dixon discussed the Maastricht Treaty and I must respond. If only the Conservative government had listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and myself during that debate and not voted against—and persuaded others to vote against—the amendment that we had tabled to have a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, how different things would look now. We would probably not have this Bill before us.
	However, we all know that the sinner who repenteth has a place in Heaven. Perhaps the sinners are repenting and understanding exactly what powers were given away through the Maastricht Treaty and what more powers will be given away shortly if the Convention on the Future of Europe has its way. I shall return to that in a moment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, referred to the corrupt octopus in Brussels. Frankly, that is a telling description. It is corrupt and we all know that for the past six years it has not been able to get its accounts agreed by the auditors. Corruption is going on. Estimates of the level of corruption range from £2 billion to £6 billion a year. If that is not corruption, I do not know what is.
	The noble Lord raised a question about the taxation powers of regional assemblies. Presumably, the intention is not that the regional authorities should have tax-raising powers—I believe that the White Paper says this. Presumably, they will have precepting powers and local authorities need to watch their finances if some of them will be filched by regional authorities. I seek the Minister's view on that. If they are not to have tax-raising powers, they would be inferior to Scotland, which is close to the North East. The fact that they would consider themselves to be inferior, as Wales is now doing, would mean that they would press for tax-raising powers. If they are to be significant regional entities, they probably need tax-raising powers. However, that is an argument for another day.

Lord Rooker: At the risk of making a rod for my own back and giving my noble friend indigestion over lunch, those bodies will have the powers to precept local authorities although they will not be able to change the business rate.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Well, yes. The Minister knows perfectly well that I believe that it is completely outrageous that central government should distribute the business rate. That should be returned to local authorities. If that were done, they would have more independence than they currently have. Indeed, I go further—I do not want to develop this point too far—and believe that we should also give local authorities tax-raising powers. I should like them to be able to introduce a local income tax, but that is another issue.
	The noble Baroness pointed out—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also touched on this—that this House and another place have no part to play in relation to a large number of issues in which they used to play a part. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said "Well, yes". We can ask questions but the problem is that we do not get any answers. The Government always say, "We cannot answer that question because it is not a matter for us; it is a matter for the regions or the Mayor of London". We can ask questions but we cannot expect, and do not get, a reply.
	That brings me back to Europe. We always seem to get back to Europe these days, whatever we are discussing, because the tentacles are spread so far and wide. On the regional map in Brussels, England is not mentioned.

Lord Rooker: I have seen this map—I went to get a copy of it—and "England" is clearly stated on it. I was worried about what my noble friend said. I will show him a copy of the map, which I have with me. It is a European Commission map and it contains Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and all the regions. Overprinted on them—it is true that one needs 20:20 vision and one's Varilux spectacles must be very clean—"England" is clearly stated.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the Minister concludes, was he made aware of when the overprinting took place?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The Minister has seen a different map from that which I have seen, which has not got "England" on it. Perhaps the pressure that some people have applied reminded the European Commission that there is a place called England and a people who live here, and whose ancestors have lived here for a very long time. I am not one of them—I was born in Wales. They are proud of England and believe that it has a great history and hope that it has a great future. Unfortunately, that is somewhat doubtful.
	The Minister and others accuse us of harping on about Europe and the European dimension—but there is a European dimension to the question, and it is ongoing. Yesterday, there was a meeting of the Standing Committee on the convention in another place, where we discussed the eighth progress report from United Kingdom representatives. Unfortunately, it had to be terminated prematurely because of the large number of Divisions in the House of Commons.
	The European convention is clearly considering the matter of regions, including whether regions should have the ability to appeal to the European Court of Justice if they feel threatened or that the national government have treated them badly or illegally. There is a European dimension to the question, therefore. I hope that the Minister will read that report, because he will see that there is great interest in Europe as to how our regions can be broken down.

Lord Kirkhill: When the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, reads the Official Report tomorrow, he should bear in mind, in relation to his earlier remarks, that Clause 1 of the Scotland Act 1998 states that there shall be a Scottish Parliament. There is a huge distinction between that assertion and confirmation on the one hand and creation of assemblies on the other. They are not in a pari passu position constitutionally.

Baroness Blatch: Before we go on with that point, I return to the map that the Minister says he has seen. That map shows Scotland, which has a parliament, and Wales, which has an assembly. Does it show London? We do not know what the nature of the creature is. At an earlier stage, the Minister said that it was neither a parliament, as in Scotland, nor an assembly, as in Wales, nor a government, as in London—it is different. So what is it?

Lord Rooker: I want to address one point before I wind up the debate—sorry, before I answer this part of the debate. I must correct myself, before the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, intervenes. I was perhaps equivocal in response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. I want to get that point out of the way, so that it does not create a diversion later. That Bill gives the authority to pay the regional planning bodies, but it is not dependent on their being elected regional assemblies. That was my main point. The regional planning bodies can be elected or not elected under that Bill; it is not relevant to the Bill that we are debating. It is simply a mechanism for paying the bodies for doing some work.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 1.34 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

European Union: Legal Personality

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the grant of legal personality to the European Union, as proposed at the Convention on the Future of Europe.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the explicit grant of legal personality to the Union would have the advantage of clarity and simplicity. But if the European Union were to have its legal personality recognised in the European treaties, it could only be on the basis that the distinct arrangements for the common foreign and security policy and aspects of justice and home affairs were fully safeguarded, along with the existing arrangements for representation in international bodies. The Government would need to be sure that the necessary safeguards were in place before taking a decision on this issue.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. But, even so, it must be clear to anyone who reads the convention's current proposals that they amount to a new European legal order with Brussels at its centre and the nation states in a largely subservient position. If the new constitution comes to be embodied in a new treaty, would it be right for the Government to use the treaty-making powers of the Royal prerogative to force it on the British people without free votes on its detail in Parliament, and without a referendum?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is reading too much into the quite specific point he raised in the Question. The specific point under discussion is the grant of legal personality. At the moment, some legal personality is granted to the European Community under the treaties of the European Community, to which all 15 current members belong. The European Union, established under the Treaty of Maastricht, is different. We need to be clear that what we are talking about would not necessarily mean a huge extension of powers provided that the kinds of safeguard that I pinpointed in my initial Answer were negotiated. I believe that those are the areas where we ought to concentrate our negotiating strength.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the proposed draft Article 4 quite simply states:
	"The Union shall have legal personality"?
	Is she aware that that recommendation from the Praesidium to the convention fully accords not only with Working Group III and its final document number 305 but also with the view of your Lordships' House? A recent report of the Select Committee on the European Union stated that,
	"the Committee agreed with the recommendation of the Convention Working Group III that the Union should expressly be granted legal personality".
	That is the view of the Select Committee.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very pleased that my noble friend pointed that out. I have in front of me a copy of the report, and I fully concur with what he has said. I would add that our own noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, was on the committee. No doubt he will say what he thinks is appropriate. However, as I understand it from reading the committee's report, there were very few dissenters from the working group's conclusion that a legal personality was the right way to proceed.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Howell.

Noble Lords: Maclennan.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if we start with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, we will have plenty of time for the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, there is plenty of time, and of course we are going to be debating these matters for many months and years ahead. I, too, have been reading this working group report, as well as communiques in which Ministers indicate not only that they are considering this idea but that they have agreed to it. It is important to make that clear. However, has not the time come for Ministers to reveal to your Lordships' House and indeed to the general public that the rather innocent-sounding proposal in Article 4 to grant legal personality is in fact of far greater significance than people have been told?
	Is it not a fact that the legal personality provision gives the Union the right to conclude treaties and to do so without any need for ratification by the nation states? That is a considerable advance in centralisation on past arrangements. It also gives the Union itself, as an entity, the right to become a member of international organisations including the United Nations. Ought we not to be told a little more about these ideas before Ministers say that they have agreed them?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we will have a full opportunity to debate not only this working group report but all the working group reports. As many noble Lords have said, we very much look forward to the robust exchanges which I am sure we can expect. Conferring a single personality on the Union would give it the capacity to act within the legal system distinctly from the states that are its members. The noble Lord is quite right. In practice that would mean that the EU would have the capacity to make treaties, to sue and be sued, and to become a member of international organisations to the extent that the rules of those international organisations allow. I hope that I have made clear the position which we would take on our own membership of some of the international organisations where we would want to preserve our position. We are currently making agreements through the European Union, certainly where there are competencies on issues such as trade, with a number of countries. We concluded a free trade agreement only very recently with a Latin American country.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the near unanimous view of the working group—there were two exceptions, I think, in a working group of 40—was based upon the near unanimous view of the lawyers that the European Union already had legal personality and that that in a sense was not the issue? Rather, it was thought that if the Union were to operate in future under one treaty, bringing together with different forms and procedures the operation of the foreign policy aspect with the community aspects, it made sense openly to attribute what was already commonly accepted to be the case.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that very ably explains the position as I understand it. As I hoped I had already made clear, the fact is that the European Community already has legal personality in the way that the noble Lord describes.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, the Minister inadvertently omitted to reply to the question from my noble friend Lord Pearson about a referendum. May I give her the opportunity to repair that omission? Is she aware that the Government of France, whatever their other shortcomings, have promised the French people that any proposed treaty changes and constitutional changes arising out of the Convention on the Future of Europe will be put to the people of France in a referendum? Why are the Government so frightened of giving the same undertaking to the people of this country?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not omit it in any sense of not wanting to answer the question. It was merely that I did not wish to detain your Lordships on a subject that we have already discussed in your Lordships' House—when I was able to point out that I did not really understand why the Opposition were so keen to press on with a referendum when they had overlooked the possibility of having one when they were in government and had the chance.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the great advantages of giving legal personality to the European Union is that it could then accede to the European Convention on Human Rights—which would mean that Eurocrats would be directly bound if they abused their powers and that there would be effective remedies for the citizens of this country before the Strasbourg court against the Eurocrats of the European Union? Is that not a great advantage referred to by the Select Committee?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I think that that is one of the points that ought to be considered. The ECJ would then extend its coverage into the EU and beyond the EC which it currently covers. I agree with the noble Lord that that would be one of the outcomes.

Regional Assemblies

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are finding any evidence of support for the establishment of elected regional assemblies in south and south-east England.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asked for responses by 3rd March from the South East and the other English regions outside London on the level of interest in holding a referendum about an elected regional assembly. We are now evaluating the responses. The soundings exercise did not ask whether people were in favour of an elected regional assembly. That will be the question asked in any referendum on the issue.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord in the Answer to my Question. A recent poll by Mori showed that in the South and South East of England fewer people were in support of a referendum on a regional assembly than were in favour of a referendum on elected Peers—a rather odd choice perhaps. It also showed that only 27 per cent of those in the south of England knew in which region they were located; the rest did not know.
	On that basis, does the Minister agree that the idea of an elected regional assembly in the South or South East of England, where we have no Newcastle, no Manchester and no obvious city, is based far more on ideology than on practicality? Does he also agree that the more people hear about a regional assembly there, the less they like it because they see it as meaning more remoteness from governmental decision, a higher council tax and a further reorganisation of local authorities, which will lead to a requirement for more money?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a fundamental misconception in what the noble Lord says. There will be no elected regional assemblies unless the people choose to have them. The assemblies will not be foisted upon them. Thus far, we have spent nine hours, give or take an hour, on Clause 1 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. The new aspect raised by the noble Lord would make our debates even more scintillating than they have been so far, and I hope that he will join us later today.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House more detail of exactly what, in the view of the Secretary of State, will constitute "evidence", either of support or otherwise? Given that the exact powers and functions of the assemblies have not yet been decided, will he at least take on board that it is rather difficult to judge the level of support?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the support in question relates to soundings as to whether there should be a referendum and not whether there should be an assembly. As we have made clear repeatedly, if we reached the point of holding a referendum, first, the boundary review would have to have taken place and, secondly, each elector or each household in a region would have received a document setting out the powers of the assembly. In any event, although we cannot commit to it firmly at present, we hope that the main draft Bill will be published so that people will know the consequences of their votes.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord is by now well aware that the North West Regional Assembly, while campaigning illegally to become an elected body, has been asserting, contrary to fact, that a wide body of opinion is in favour of an elected regional assembly in the North West. Will he ensure that the statements of such self-serving bodies are not taken into account in the soundings exercise but are put in the dustbin where they belong?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will take these matters into account and make a judgment as to whether there should be a referendum—that is, whether a boundary review should take place first as that will take a considerable amount of time—only after the paving Bill has received Royal Assent. The factors involved in the soundings review relate to the referendum and not to the assembly itself, as we have made clear repeatedly. When my right honourable friend makes a judgment, he will give to Parliament the evidence and the facts on which he bases that judgment.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, will my noble friend observe the support expressed by many Conservative councillors on Buckinghamshire County Council for the Government's proposals? That may suggest that Conservatives in southern England are not quite so resistant to change as some of the speeches in the debate on the Bill suggest.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a new one on me. So far, during the course of our debates, no one has mentioned the support from the Conservatives in Buckinghamshire.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, as a resident of Buckinghamshire, I have seen no evidence whatever of it.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am just the Minister who is presenting to this House the Bill that has already been through another place. It is not possible to know every nuance of the battles that are clearly going on around the country in relation to the Bill. However, the conclusion to be drawn from this morning's debate is that there is so much interest in the matter that people cannot rightly claim no one knows about the proposal.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, why does the Minister say that there will be no regional assemblies unless the people so decide and unless there is a referendum? Why was that Answer not given to my noble friend Lord Lawson on the subject of the Convention on the Future of Europe?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, made the position clear. There is no unity in the country on this matter. The regions are different and therefore the regions should have the choice. The Bill simply facilitates the opportunity for that. That is what the soundings exercise is all about. A decision will be made in due course and will be presented to Parliament for approval.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that we should hear from my noble friend Lord Brooke.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does the Minister share the view that, if we have such a great desire to hold referendums, we should involve the people and that, similarly, we should exercise the same view in relation to elections to this House?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, at present, as one of the newest Members of this House, I am staggered that I am on the receiving end of all these manifestos for an election which I thought had nothing to do with me. Therefore, I shall certainly not go down that road.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we must move on now.

Pakistan

Lord Ahmed: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will support the lifting of the suspension on Pakistan from the Commonwealth.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is currently a matter for the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. The UK is not a member of that group. Its members will meet in May and we understand that their discussions will include Pakistan. We believe it is important that the Commonwealth stays closely engaged with Pakistan throughout its transition to democracy and that it helps to sustain the process with technical and other forms of assistance. We are providing help and remain committed to supporting Pakistan's development over the long term.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Is she aware that Pakistani people recently elected many thousands of women as councillors—more than 33 per cent of the total? Is she aware that Pakistan has elected more women as parliamentarians than about 147 other countries? In fact, in that respect Pakistan now ranks thirty-third out of 180 countries. Now that the Senate elections have taken place, is my noble friend satisfied that the process of restoring democracy has been completed, and will Her Majesty's Government help Pakistan to fight poverty and illiteracy?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course, we welcome the holding of multi-party elections in Pakistan. The system of having reserved seats for women has meant that there are now a number of women councillors and women in the National Assembly and other parts of the legislature. Although the election process was completed with the holding of the Senate elections last month, it is now the joint responsibility of the new Government, the political parties and parliamentarians to ensure that Pakistan's progress towards democracy is sustained. There are concerns that the Parliament has met infrequently since being established.
	My noble friend also asked me about support with respect to illiteracy. We have a development programme, whose focus is on three areas: creating the economic conditions for the reduction of poverty; improving health outcomes; and improving educational outcomes. I believe that that tackles my noble friend's point.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, apart from the progress that Pakistan has made in the restoration of democratic institutions and in enhancing the rights of women, does the noble Baroness agree that it has also made considerable progress in combating corruption and in rural development, as the World Bank has acknowledged? In those circumstances, even though we are not a member of CMAG, does the noble Baroness believe that the Government could exercise their influence with members of the Commonwealth who are part of CMAG so as to restore Commonwealth membership to Pakistan at a date earlier than that of the CHOGM in December?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in my initial reply, CMAG will meet in May. It will then make a decision, which will be referred to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. It is highly unlikely that it will convene again before the meeting in December, and I believe that we should await the outcome of CMAG's discussions in May. As the noble Lord will know, we were members of CMAG until we left at the last Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that Pakistan has made progress in other areas, including in rural development and in tackling corruption.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have not people from Pakistan made outstanding contributions in many fields before and after independence in 1947—not overlooking its pre-eminence in the world of cricket?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that people from Pakistan have made outstanding contributions in many areas. I agree with the point about cricket, although that has not been reflected in the recent World Cup.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if the Government are really serious about democracy and human rights in Pakistan, why is it that the Government, including in answers given by the Minister herself, have absolutely refused to take any interest in the imprisonment of Benazir Bhutto's husband? Whether or not he is guilty, the fact is that he has not been brought to trial; he has been tortured; and his treatment has been condemned at a conference of the IPU. And the Government just say that the plight of the husband of a leading politician in that country has nothing to do with the functioning of democracy and is nothing to do with the Government because he is not a British citizen. Why is it not their concern?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think I have made it absolutely clear in replies on this matter that I have given to the noble Lord that our consular responsibilities are clear. They are set out in international law. We have a responsibility to look after the welfare of British citizens abroad. Benazir Bhutto's husband is not a British national.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is a fairly obvious case of double standards when Pakistan is not allowed to become a member of the Commonwealth because of its undemocratic regime, whereas Zimbabwe is being reconsidered for admission by both South Africa and Nigeria? Does she agree that this case of double standards calls into question the value of the Commonwealth as a forum for promoting democratic rights?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, Pakistan and Zimbabwe are both suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe's suspension will continue until the next CHOGM in December in Abuja, as was announced by the Commonwealth Secretary-General last weekend.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am surprised at the answer given by the noble Baroness to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that this country does not have a responsibility to people who are being imprisoned in Pakistan, as is the husband of Benazir Bhutto. I thought we—according to the Prime Minister—were in the process of conducting a war in Iraq to make a regime change, a regime that is in fact imprisoning and torturing people. What is the difference?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I made absolutely clear what our consular responsibilities are. I have set out those responsibilities in reply to the noble Lord in correspondence that goes back over many months.

Universal Banking Services

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Miller, who has been called away urgently from the House for a family emergency, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made on the introduction of the Universal Bank; and what the impact is expected to be on the future of the Post Office.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, good progress continues to be made on the introduction of universal banking services. The migration of benefit payments to direct payment begins this April and the Post Office's strategy is to respond to that challenge with a range of banking and other services. The impact that the migration of benefit payments has on the revenue of post offices will depend on a number of factors, not least how benefit recipients and other post office customers respond to change.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, given that the switch of the benefit payment system will result in a loss of 40 per cent of the Post Office network income, which is some £400 million per year, can the Minister tell the House how much of the savings resulting from this exercise the Treasury will contribute annually to stop the haemorrhaging of post offices in our country—some 635 in the past few years alone before the scheme has even begun?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is important to realise that there is no alternative to this change. We cannot continue with a system that is effectively dying on its feet, for the simple reason that people are voting to go over to banking services. No assessment has been made of the total impact of the change on the finances of the post offices. But, as the noble Baroness will be aware, we are making substantial commitments to rural post offices. Subject to state aids clearance, we shall be making available £450 million—£150 million a year for the three years 2003–04 to 2005–06—in order to make certain that the rural post office network is in good condition.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, in view of the imminence of the transfer of payments on 1st April to the new system, will the Minister accept that many of the reservations expressed over recent years from all sides of your Lordships' House about the new system have proved to be well-founded? Will he accept that there is a significant danger that many of the elderly, and in particular many of the elderly infirm, will, at best, be confused by the new system and, at worst, be deprived of their benefits?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have yet to see the introduction of the new system. It will be introduced in April. Therefore, it is not possible to say that we have the evidence to show that reservations are justified. We do not yet have any information on how it will work. A careful process has been put in place to transfer people across to the new system. I have no reason to believe that that is not working perfectly well.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I declare my usual interest as a former postman. During the proceedings on the Postal Services Bill in May 2000 does my noble friend recall the response he gave to me and to the House regarding beneficiaries being able to get their benefits in cash in a post office? In an earlier response today my noble friend mentioned people voting to transfer benefits into bank accounts. Does he agree that there is no alternative? Beneficiaries must go into one of the systems, and if nothing else, the one that the Post Office is providing. Therefore, he is no longer able to say that people have the right to get cash: they have to go through a banking system.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I remember well the answer I gave. The answer I give now is exactly the same. The point of the Post Office card account is so that people can receive their benefits in cash. What is different is simply that it is not a paper-based but an IT-based system. Their ability to get cash is exactly the same.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further following his response to the noble Lord. Can he confirm that post offices are being denied the opportunity to offer their first choice to recipients? The Government are deliberately not offering the universal banking system as first choice, but are pushing people into using banking systems as first choice and post office systems as second choice. That could undermine the future viability of sub-post offices.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are not managing people's choices, as has been suggested by some. They are simply informing individuals of the available choices. There are no eligibility criteria. There is no cap on the numbers of the Post Office card accounts. I should have thought that giving people choice was something of which the noble Baroness would approve.

Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister able to give an undertaking that the Universal Bank and post offices will be able to provide facilities that are adequate for the use of the blind and the partially sighted?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a system has been introduced for PIN numbers which is, I believe, widely used without any problems, but the Post Office is committed to finding ways to improve such provision. The PIN pads that have been installed are widely used without problems across Europe and elsewhere. The Post Office is committed to three things in order to meet the needs of their customers: first, to improve the current PIN pads by fitting a guard over buttons to help guide customers; secondly, to provide further training for sub-postmasters and post office staff to enable them to help customers; and, thirdly, in the longer term, to look at technological opportunities to provide a secure alternative to PIN pads for people with disabilities.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister said that there has been no impact assessment of this on the future of the Post Office. Why not?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I explained to the House in the, I think, second answer I gave, there is no alternative. We were embarked, as a result of the previous government, on a system to computerise the service which the Post Office gave. When one has a system that has such very obvious economic benefits—the difference between the cost of this system to the DWP is 1 pence compared with £1.40 for every giro direct payment—there really is no alternative to going forward.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is not the impact of all that the Minister has described for the benefit of the Government, not at all for the benefit of the customer? When discussing PIN pads, does he not realise that elderly people never remember their PINs? I am sure that many people around here forget them too. Small post offices in rural areas serve all those elderly people who have no alternative and do not like those new-fangled banking methods.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I explained, most people are now voting clearly with their feet. More than 80 per cent of benefit recipients already have access to a bank account; 58 per cent of all new child benefit recipients and 59 per cent of all new pensioners have their money paid directly. The idea that in today's world we can continue with a paper-based system and bury our heads in the sand about change is simply not an option.

Iraq

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, with permission I should like to make a Statement about military operations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
	"President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein expired at one o'clock this morning. Just as Saddam failed to take his final opportunity to disarm by peaceful means, so he has now failed to take his final opportunity to depart in peace and avoid the need for coalition military action. I draw the House's attention to Hans Blix's comments in New York yesterday that he was disappointed that three and a half months of inspection work had not brought clear assurances from the Iraqis of the absence of weapons of mass destruction.
	"President Bush announced at 3.15 this morning, on behalf of the coalition, that operations had begun with attacks on selected targets of military importance. Those attacks were carried out by coalition aircraft and cruise missiles on more than one target in the vicinity of Baghdad, following information relating to the whereabouts of very senior members of the Iraqi leadership. Those leaders are at the very heart of Iraq's command and control system, responsible for directing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
	"Saddam Hussein's regime is the chief obstacle to the disarmament of Iraq. The military plan is therefore crafted around his removal from power. We will place a copy of the Government's military campaign objectives in the Library of the House later today.
	"In addition to those attacks, coalition forces yesterday carried out certain preliminary operations against Iraqi artillery, surface-to-surface missiles and air defence systems within the southern No Fly Zone. Those were prudent preparatory steps, using coalition air capabilities previously used in the No Fly Zones, designed to reduce the threat to coalition forces in Kuwait. The protection of our servicemen and women will remain a matter of paramount importance.
	"The House will be aware of reports of Iraqi missile attacks against Kuwait. Those incidents are being investigated by personnel with the appropriate skills and the necessary protection. There are no reported casualties so far, but I am afraid that there is nothing more that I can confirm to the House at this stage.
	"I should like to draw the attention of the House to two particular points. First, coalition forces will take every possible care to minimise civilian casualties or damage to civilian infrastructure. While the coalition will use modern weapons, which are more accurate than ever, we can unfortunately never exclude the possibility of civilian casualties, tragic though they always are. However, people should treat with caution Iraq's claims of civilian casualties. The Iraqi people are not our enemies, and we are determined to do all that we can to help them build the better future that they deserve.
	"Secondly, I caution the House against suggestions that the campaign will be over in a very short time. We certainly all hope that offensive operations will be over quickly, but we should not underestimate the risks and difficulties that we may face against a regime that is the embodiment of absolute ruthlessness with an utter disregard for human life.
	"Turning to the United Kingdom's Armed Forces, I have set out in successive Statements the forces that we have prepared for this purpose. We have deployed a substantial naval force of 29 Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, including the aircraft carrier, HMS "Ark Royal", and the helicopter carrier, HMS "Ocean"; a land force led by Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division and including 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, 16 Air Assault Brigade, 7th Armoured Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade; and an air force comprising about 100 fixed-wing aircraft and 27 helicopters.
	"In all, about 45,000 servicemen and women have been assigned to the campaign to disarm Iraq. Our forces will make a major contribution to the military action to disarm Iraq, which we will pursue at a time and on a schedule of our own choosing. They are trained, equipped and ready for the tasks that they may now need to undertake. British forces are already engaged in some military operations, although the House will understand why I cannot give further details at this stage.
	"Events over the coming days will dominate the 24-hour media. The House will recognise that we must all be wary of jumping to conclusions on the basis of 'breaking news' before there has been time to conduct a proper investigation. Similarly, the House will understand—and I hope the media will too—that if we respond to media pressure for instant operational detail, we could risk the security and safety of our forces. We cannot therefore offer a running commentary on media reports.
	"I will, however, ensure that the House is kept fully informed of significant developments. That is why I am making this Statement today. In addition to Statements as and when necessary, I will arrange for a short summary to be placed in the Library of the House, and copies made available to Members in the Vote Office, as warranted by the day's events.
	"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be travelling to the European Council this afternoon. Once military action has begun and UK forces are substantially engaged, the Prime Minister will ask to make a broadcast to the nation.
	"Once again, we are placing an enormous weight of responsibility on the shoulders of our Armed Forces. We have not taken the decision to do so lightly. The commitment to military action of service personnel is always the gravest step that any Government can take. I know that the thoughts and prayers of the House and our country are with them, and their families, as they embark on their mission. We hope for their safe and swift return".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place and for assuring the House that he will keep your Lordships informed and that short summaries will be placed in the Library, as warranted by the day's events.
	Military operations are likely to be unpredictable, as events in the early hours of this morning confirmed. It is appreciated that throughout this conflict targets will present themselves at short notice and it will be essential that military commanders are able to react immediately and with the necessary autonomy. It is also important to ensure that those commanders in the field are left to get on with the job and win the battles, and that Ministers do not interfere with decision-making on the battlefield.
	The Statement refers to last night's aerial attacks being carried out using coalition aircraft and cruise missiles on targets in the vicinity of Baghdad. Will the Minister tell us whether those coalition forces included the UK? If so, what part did we take? Will he confirm that the coalition is far wider than just the United Kingdom and the United States of America and comprises some 35 nations, although not all are directly involved in military operations? There are reports of some four Scud-B missile attacks on Kuwait. If it is confirmed that those are Al Sammoud missiles with a range of at least 600 kilometres, it would prove beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein had continued to lie and deceive and had failed to disarm. Can the Minister provide more detail about the reported exchange of artillery fire? We welcome the recovery of all the crew and the special forces from the United States helicopter crash in southern Iraq.
	It would also help the House if the Minister could provide more information about the situation regarding Turkey. Apparently the Turkish parliament is sitting now. Does he consider that there will be a positive outcome to the request for approval of coalition overfly rights and the movement of US troops through northern Turkey? Is there any likelihood of interaction of Turkish and Kurdish forces in northern Iraq?
	It is assumed that Iraqis will be given prisoner-of-war status on surrender. But, bearing in mind that it is a very expensive manpower operation to guard prisoners of war and costly on rations, water and medical facilities, what role might they be invited to play in later stages of the conflict, perhaps as volunteers fighting for us?
	I endorse caution in respect of claims that the conflict will be over in a very short time. We hope sincerely that it will be. Cautious optimism is the best approach to adopt. There will inevitably be events in the next few days or weeks that involve bad, distressing news. It will test our determination to continue the fight. However, momentum must be maintained, and we must all have the strength and resolve to see this through to the end.
	I feel a special affinity with the troops deployed as the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, with which I spent the greater part of my life, and the 16/5th Queens Royal Lancers—now the Queens Royal Lancers—which I commanded, who are both about to be in action. I wish them and all other units, including our coalition partners, the best of good fortune. I pray for their safe return and for their families to be given strength during this worrying time.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I echo the support for the servicemen and servicewomen from all three services in the Gulf in what is a very frightening time for them and their families. I realise that the Minister will find it extremely difficult to answer many questions on a fluid situation. I shall try not to ask any to which he obviously would not have answers.
	I have only three questions. The first concerns the attacks last night. Can the Minister confirm the process by which targeting was agreed between the British and the Americans? Does all targeting go through the British chain of command, ending with the Prime Minister, for such sensitive targets? I ask that, in particular, because it will be a difficult conflict to prosecute, considering that we are trying to change the regime but at the same time spare casualties on the Iraqi side and as much as possible of the infrastructure which will be so necessary for humanitarian assistance in the coming few weeks.
	My second question is this. Of the 35 countries mentioned by the spokesperson for the Official Opposition, which have supplied military support in the field? At present it appears that around three have done so.
	Obviously, the Minister may not be able to answer the particulars of my next question, which relates to a matter of some concern, but he may be able to give the reason behind any action taken. There are indications that prisoners of war have been trying to surrender to the allied forces. It is rumoured that they have been turned away. The Minister may be able to confirm or deny that. On what basis would such soldiers be turned away, considering the uncertain fate of any soldier trying to desert the Iraqi army?
	Now that we are at war, we support our soldiers. However, there is a perception that it will be a short and bloodless war. That may well not be the case, but we hope that it will be. We thank the Minister for all the information that he can give Parliament in the coming few weeks.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am truly grateful to both noble Lords for their comments, questions and, in particular, for their support of the Statement that I have repeated. For the moment, I pick out the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. I found what he said quite moving, because he has real, distinguished experience over many years in the British Army. He spoke to the House with the benefit of that experience. We also have in our thoughts today our colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who is serving his country as we speak.
	I shall answer those questions of the noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Redesdale, to which I can respond. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, insisted that commanders in the field should have considerable freedom. They will have that freedom, as he knows they have in the past.
	As I understand it, the United Kingdom was not involved in last night's engagement. The noble Lord mentions 35 nations in the coalition; I understand that there are more than 35. In response to the question of which nations provide what assets, all provide an asset by supporting what, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, is a noble cause. I am not in a position to say which nations have or have not provided military assets.
	I am afraid that it is too early to say whether the missiles that the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, refers to are in breach or not. Whether or not they are, I do not think that we would be surprised to find during the next few anxious days and weeks that quite a number are in breach. I am afraid that I have no more details about the artillery fire incidents that occurred yesterday.
	On Turkey, I cannot speak for the Turkish parliament. We very much hope that it will decide to allow coalition aircraft to fly over Turkey. But I am afraid that we will just have to wait and see.
	Both noble Lords asked about prisoners of war. It goes without saying that they will be looked after entirely appropriately under international law. I cannot comment on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the rumour about incidents yesterday. Yesterday was a particularly difficult day on the border between Kuwait and Iraq, but I cannot confirm or deny what is said to have happened.
	All that I may say about last night's incident over Baghdad is that the British Government knew about it in advance, as one would expect. Targeting is taken extremely seriously by the whole coalition. I tell the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we take very seriously our responsibility to act within the framework of international law regulating international conflict. Very careful attention is applied to ensure that we minimise the risk of damage from any quarter to civilian populations and infrastructure. I think that those points answer the questions that the noble Lords posed.

Lord Rea: My Lords, did not the Statement do Hans Blix an injustice by using only part of his statement to the Security Council? He went on to say that he regretted that he had not had more time to finish his work. The British-American coalition seemed to be in a great hurry to get started, and one of the reasons given for that was the weather conditions. Could it not also have been the fact that Mr Blix might have found that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction that warranted a pre-emptive strike, rather as my right honourable friend Robin Cook suggested in his resignation speech?

Lord Bach: My Lords, it was not the job of Hans Blix and the inspectors to find such prohibited weapons of mass destruction. It was the duty of the Iraqi authorities to hand such weapons over immediately after the passing of Resolution 1441—well before that, one might say. The inspectors were not supposed to be detectives, and Resolution 1441 was expressly clear on what it required the Iraqi authorities to do.
	My noble friend is right. I heard the interview with Hans Blix on the "Today" programme this morning, in which he expressed disappointment. I acknowledge that, but, in his turn, my noble friend must acknowledge that Hans Blix also made it clear that he was disappointed that, after three and a half months of inspection work, following the passing of Resolution 1441, there had been no clear assurances from the Iraqis of the absence of weapons of mass destruction. In my view, that justifies what we are doing.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I welcome the references in the Statement to media reporting. Does the noble Lord recall the excessive coverage during the previous Gulf War by CNN and the damage that it did to the allied cause? On this occasion, might not the media be reminded that it is not some form of showbiz in which they must compete for coverage? This is for real, and lives will be at risk the whole time. In those circumstances, is it too much to hope that they will show some measure of self-restraint and some sense of responsibility?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I remember the reporting of the Gulf War. The noble Lord makes a fair point, but I must say that there is, as yet, nothing to suggest that the media have not learnt lessons from that experience. There is some time to go before we can make a judgment on that, but what the noble Lord said should be borne in mind by all the media—there are thousands of media people in the Gulf—in their reporting of the news.

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I was saddened this morning to hear the news that military action against Iraq had begun, in spite of recent strenuous efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution. As we have heard numerous times in recent days, many people in our country and the world, including me and other noble Lords, had great hopes of a diplomatic solution. It is of the greatest concern when such diplomacy fails and armed conflict is perceived to be the last resort in settling the world's problems.
	Like many noble Lords, I remain less than convinced that sufficient evidence was produced to justify the action, but that is now history. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said in the recent debate in your Lordships' House, we must now refocus our concerns. We can and will unite with those who have always supported military action, and we can do so in several ways.
	We will pray that the conflict will be over as speedily as possible. We will pray that casualties will be as few as possible. We will hope and pray for the appropriate rehabilitation of Iraq and its civilian population and for proper humanitarian treatment for families, especially the children. We will pray that a new and better Iraq, free of tyranny, will emerge when the conflict ends—soon, we hope.
	In the debate in your Lordships' House the other evening, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford drew our attention to the vital ministry of our service chaplains in the conflict. I am glad to draw our attention to their work and promise them my strong support for their ministry. I assure them and all the members of our armed services with whom they serve and their anxious families and loved ones of our earnest and continuing prayers.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the right reverend Prelate, but I must ask him to frame a question.

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, will the Minister ask the Churches to continue to pray, to keep their churches open for such prayer and continue to strive, with other faith communities, to stand firm together in this difficult period?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for those remarks. The United Kingdom Government had exactly the same hope as he and his colleagues had that we could solve the issue by diplomatic means.
	I also thank the right reverend Prelate for what he said about service padres. I know that priests of different denominations and faiths already play an important part in keeping British troops—and other troops as well, no doubt—feeling wanted and important. They are helping them at a difficult time for them and their families. We have all seen on television the services that have taken place in the past few days. Importantly, they are inter-faith, rather than being for just one faith.
	Finally, I say to the right reverend Prelate that many of us will have listened to his colleague—our colleague—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford this morning on the "Today" programme and will have heard him use the prayer of St Augustine. I found it very affecting.

Lord Vincent of Coleshill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and timely Statement and for the helpful information that he made available to the House in his answers to subsequent questions.
	The Minister indicated the number and type of the forces deployed out there. If my mental arithmetic is right, we have more there than at the time of the Gulf War, when the Armed Forces were about 330,000 strong. Today, they are 250,000 strong, and 19,000 at home have to stand by to act as fire-fighters. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are considering the long-term sustainability of the operation, if it turns out to be a longer and harder struggle than we hope?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, who had great experience of the first Gulf War some years ago. Undoubtedly, he is right. The fact that 19,000 of our Armed Forces personnel must stand by for possible Fire Brigades Union strikes is shocking. I believe that most members of that union will appreciate how shocking it is at this time, when our troops are putting themselves on the line.
	As the noble and gallant Lord will understand better than most, there is much consideration in the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere of the dispositions of our Armed Forces, if the conflict takes any length of time. At this stage, I can tell the noble and gallant Lord only that those discussions are going on.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord for making the Statement and for the manner in which he made it, whatever side we take on the conflict. However, I must press him on the treatment of prisoners of war. This is an extremely important aspect, bearing in mind that the United States has incarcerated in Cuba, without trial and in not very good conditions, Taliban fighters who are as much soldiers as anyone. It has kept them without access and, apparently, without much representation from our Government.
	Will the Government ensure that prisoners of war captured in this war are treated according to international standards? Will the Minister ensure that the Government make representation to the United States and any other country's forces which might be involved in this war that they do likewise? If they do not, we are not acting quite like Saddam Hussein, but nevertheless we are not acting in accordance with the high principles of which this country is rightly proud.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord says. He can rest assured that we shall ensure that any prisoners of war are looked after in accordance with international law. Anything else would be quite wrong. Indeed, if we look forward to a new Iraq, which we should do now, it will be doubly important that those poor conscripts, who in many cases have been dragged into the Iraqi army without any choice, are well looked after. They have a place in the future of Iraq and we must ensure that they do not lose faith in that.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I offer my best wishes to the Minister and his colleagues, who are to face a very tough time indeed. In the first 24 hours—or barely that—one can see how the wealth of rumour is spreading and the difficulty that the Ministers will have in trying to give accurate information. There is one particular aspect that I hope Ministers will ensure is followed through. If we were, sadly, to suffer casualties, it is of prime importance that the next of kin are told at the earliest possible moment in a properly sympathetic and considerate way and do not learn it from the media. It is important that if casualties have to be announced the Minister can say then that the next of kin have been informed. That is very important because when casualties are announced everyone thinks that their son or brother is involved—all 35,000 of them. Therefore, from the point of view of morale, it is very important that that information accompanies any announcement. It is a major challenge and a major test, but I hope that that will be met.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for his good wishes to Ministers. He had a very responsible role during the previous Gulf war. He speaks with a great deal of experience from that time. His good wishes are much appreciated by all Ministers.
	He is absolutely right about the dangers of rumour. As the noble Lord, Lord Eden mentioned, we live in an age of constant, 24-hour media coverage. There is a real responsibility on the media as regards the prospect of casualties. As he would expect, there are papers in the Ministry of Defence that I have seen that deal anxiously with this particular issue. I reassure him that as far as the Ministry is concerned it will be essential that any announcement of casualties is done in an appropriate way—namely, in the way he outlined.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I strongly welcome the tone and content of what the Minister has said to the House today. I have two questions. My first question concerns the issue of deserters and the report that the half-brother of Saddam last night went into exile in Syria. Is the Minister able to share any information on both that move and the desertion of troops at the border with Kuwait? Will the Minister tell us how we shall prosecute those responsible for crimes of genocide? Is it our intention to use the International Criminal Court or will we be setting up a separate tribunal in order to ensure that those who have been responsible for such crimes against humanity inside Iraq are brought to justice? That is the reason why many of us have supported the Government in the stand that they have taken in prosecuting this war.
	Does the Minister agree that the words spoken yesterday by Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins were both eloquent and moving and that he summed up the purpose of this conflict when he said,
	"We go to liberate not to conquer"?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I cannot help him on his first two questions about deserters. I should rather make no comment on that at this stage, not having the information in front of me. Indeed, it would be dangerous to do so and we would not be keeping to our word unless we actually knew what occurred before announcing it.
	Secondly, beyond saying that the Iraqi leadership should beware of prosecutions at the conclusion of hostilities, it is much too early to say under what provisions and to which court. I am sure that that is a matter to which we shall return. Thirdly, I back up the comments made by Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins. Many people heard them and thought that they were in the best tradition of the British Army.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I express appreciation of what the Minister said and I understand why he said that it would not be possible for the Government to comment on all the stories that appear and the inevitability of very widespread coverage, much of which will not originate from this country. If the inference is that the Government recognise at this stage that censorship would be unhelpful, I welcome that.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. One of the differences between us and Iraq is that we enjoy a free press. It infuriates us often but, at the same time, we would protect it to the death. That is exactly what our troops are doing.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the Minister comment more fully on the firefighters' strike? Are the Government taking, or considering taking, any action to stop this totally unjustified and deleterious action?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as I understand it, thankfully, the strike that was called for tomorrow has been called off. We know that there has been some conflict between the leadership and other parts of the Fire Brigades Union. We call on that union to say as soon as possible that it will agree the settlement and will call off the risks of any further strikes.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I want to press the Minister further on the prosecution of war criminals. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Royal Irish Regiment captures Saddam Hussein. He is obviously, on what anyone has said, a barbarian of the first order. Would it not be an irony if he were caught and charged in front of the International Criminal Court when the United States does not recognise the ICC?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not want to go beyond my brief. If he was caught in the circumstances that the noble Earl mentioned, he would be prosecuted.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I turn to another aspect of what the Minister said in terms of deployment of our forces. Does it not make it absolutely clear that British forces are now a substantial part of a coalition and not, as some people have said, just an add-on to the Americans?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. What he says is absolutely right. We are an essential and important part of the coalition force. The best proof of that is that our American allies say precisely that. We have a very large proportion of our Armed Forces in theatre at present. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, made that point. The jobs and work that they will have to do will be essential if and when we are to win this conflict.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 1, Amendment No. 25A.

Lord Rooker: As we commence our tenth hour on Clause 1—I enjoyed the first nine hours and I am sure that I shall enjoy the second nine—I shall do my best to answer the questions that have been raised. First, however, I want to get one point out of the way, which I hope will bring a smile to the face of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Earlier she asked me a question which I was not able to answer. She invited me to do so, but it was impossible and I could only think to myself, "She's got me here".
	As the Bill stands, no order is made under Clause 12. So I can give an undertaking that no order will be made within the next 12 months. I know that that is something of a cheap answer, but when officials drew my attention to the clause I realised that it is not an order-making clause in that sense.
	I wish to repeat an important point I made last week. In the scale of things, and because of what has been said about wrecking the constitution and the high level of urgency in this matter, I want once more to state that it will be at least 2006 or 2007 before any elected regional assembly is set up. I repeat: the earliest date will be at least 2006 or 2007. So while we have a timetable and a process governed by this paving Bill and a referendum, there is no rush on the establishment of the assemblies.
	I wish to make a further preliminary point before turning to the specific issues relating to the amendment. No powers are being ceded from the Westminster Parliament. From time to time during our debates earlier today, the words "Parliament" and "government" were used interchangeably, which was unfortunate. No powers are to be ceded from Westminster, as opposed to Whitehall. Powers are to be ceded from Whitehall rather than from Westminster; that is, they will come from the executive, the Government, their agencies and quangos. The elected assemblies will not have powers to make primary or secondary legislation.

Baroness Blatch: The executive has no powers. Powers are parliamentary powers. The executive is a servant of Parliament. Parliament is sovereign and all powers lie either with Parliament or they will be ceded to local government. However, even the powers of local government are gained from Parliament. I do not know what the noble Lord means when he says that powers will be ceded from Whitehall and from the executive, but not from Parliament.

Lord Rooker: I do not think that that is a fair way of putting it. The noble Baroness has served as a Minister. She must understand the difference between the executive actions a government takes under existing statutory rules, such as the paying out of money and funds, all of which are approved by Parliament. In the main those are executive actions, certainly in terms of government offices of the regions.
	I return to the words used this morning about powers from Westminster and from Parliament. The powers of parliamentary scrutiny over the Government will remain. I do not believe that people could think seriously that we are seeking to shut down the questioning of a whole range of public policy. Questions are asked about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since there have been devolved assemblies. Given a few moments' thought, it is easy to work out how to raise a point. While it is true that the Minister may not be able to provide the answer—because, in the case of, say, London, the Mayor for London has direct statutory powers in regard to certain functions—the ability to raise any issue in Parliament remains firmly in place.
	As a Back-Bencher I never had any trouble raising issues that I wanted to raise, whether they were in order or out of order. Given a little thought, any issue can be raised. It may be that you did not always receive the answer, but sometimes the central aim was simply to ensure that the issue was raised.
	There are no legislative powers for the assemblies, either primary or secondary. To that extent, I freely admit that the assemblies will not be like the National Assembly for Wales, which has powers to enact secondary legislation. The Scottish Parliament has primary legislative powers. No one says that the assemblies are all the same. Indeed, it would be wrong if we tried to make them all the same because the country is so diverse.
	I turn now to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I almost referred to his "tricolour of questions", but I should not say that. I do not want to wind up the noble Lord. He put three questions to me. Yes, the Government do plan to implement paragraph 4.18 of the White Paper. Yes, the Government will continue to take responsibility for negotiations on the total amount of EU spending. Finally, yes, elected assemblies will have a power to raise taxes. I made that specific intervention in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I believe that the noble Lord—

Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may finish the answer to the noble Lord's third question before he rises to speak. I have said that the elected assemblies will have the power to raise taxes. Chapter 5 of the White Paper explains that they will be able to raise a precept on the council tax. However, that has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the European Union, which is the central point I want to make. That is made quite clear in Chapter 5 of the White Paper and there is no secret about it.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am sure that either it was a slip of the tongue on the part of the noble Lord or a mistake on his briefing paper, but I referred to paragraph 4.31 of the White Paper, not paragraph 4.18, with which I am not familiar. That paragraph does not appear to address the points I sought to put to the noble Lord. It would be helpful if he could confirm that the Government do intend to stick to what is set out in paragraph 4.31.

Lord Rooker: I fully admit my mistake. The noble Lord is quite right. My note of his speech mentions paragraph 4.31, but my official note refers to paragraph 4.18. No doubt in due course I shall be able to give the noble Lord a fuller answer. However, I can confirm that he did ask about paragraph 4.31 because that is what I wrote down at the time, and that was the paragraph I read.
	Perhaps I may turn to the central points of Amendment No. 25A, which seeks to prevent any referendum being ordered until the Secretary of State has published the results of an independent inquiry into the constitution and practice of the effects of regional government on the UK Parliament. There is a simple answer here which no one in our earlier debates mentioned. Noble Lords already have independent advice on the constitutional effects of the Bill. The Constitution Select Committee of the House of Lords published its report on 12th February, but I do not think that any Member of the Committee referred to that during our earlier discussions.
	While it is true that the committee noted a number of constitutional implications, it did not highlight any particular effect on the UK Parliament. More widely, on 15th January the committee reported on devolution and inter-institutional relations in the UK, to which last week the Government published their response. In some ways, therefore, while I do not in any way denigrate the importance attached to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, it could be held that this is really a delaying move. The effects on the constitution are already available to noble Lords. The matter has been looked at. We submit that the establishment of regional assemblies will not diminish the role of Parliament.
	Parliament and central government will remain responsible for UK-wide matters: defence, foreign policy, European policy, relations with international bodies and taxation. Parliament will retain responsibility for the areas of England-wide importance: the National Health Service and schools. Finally, Parliament will continue to be responsible for primary and secondary legislation for the English regions. So the UK will remain a parliamentary democracy with the Westminster Parliament absolutely supreme.
	I repeat once more: there is no Speaker in this House and so there are no rules. It is 10 times easier to raise an issue here than in another place. For myself, I think we ought to change that to bring about a little precision, thus enabling Ministers to provide better answers. The answers would be better if the questions were more orderly than is sometimes the case. My experience is that Members of both Houses, with a few minutes' thought, can raise any issue they wish. Over the years, many of my troublesome friends have found it quite easy to do that. Empowering the English regions will not mean a break-up of England or the United Kingdom.
	As to the practical effects, there will be the distinct advantages set out in the White Paper. I am not making a case for or against them because the point of the exercise is to let the people choose in a referendum. Elected assemblies will mean a devolution of power and decision-making will be brought closer to the people. Reference has been made to decision-making being removed from communities, but it will be brought a lot closer to the people. We may argue about their importance, but they will not be made in Whitehall, they will be made in the regions. There will be a new regional level of public scrutiny and democratic accountability.
	It is difficult to quantify the way in which individuals will make use of the tool of an assembly. If established, assemblies will give a distinct political voice to the regions of this country and a say in the regional decisions that matter to them. I accept that that will depend on individuals and the leadership given by the people elected to such assemblies.
	Assemblies will mean that some of the issues that are now decided at Westminster will be decided in the regions. That is the whole point of the exercise and I make no apology for it. But if noble Lords are saying that it would be best if all these matters were still dealt with in London, I can assure them that, whatever I may have hinted I thought about the Bill, I have no problem whatever in dismissing the idea that it is a good thing that all decisions should be made in London. It is not a good thing; it is a bad thing. As many decisions as possible should be made far away from London and near to the people affected by them. If that is at regional level or local council level, so much the better. We will be a better, more mature democracy for it.
	It will also put Ministers under greater scrutiny in exercising the devolution of power. A lot more thought will have to be given to the policy structure when decisions are devolved in that way. An independent inquiry would not add to our knowledge. We are confident that once the people choose—if they choose—they will be best placed to take those decisions in those areas. The policy is about choice.
	I have with me—although I cannot show it to the Committee—a copy of the said map. I have checked it. It is a genuine EU map of states and regions. I can assure the Committee that the word "England" appears on the map, as does the word "London". I hope that that puts to rest, once and for all, the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.

The Earl of Onslow: Will not the EU have direct contact with the regional headquarters under the new octarchy produced by Ethelred the Unready's successor? If it by-passes London, will that not have constitutional implications?

Lord Rooker: Not really. I have made it clear, repeatedly, that the regional assemblies will have no new powers and no new money in that respect. It is not a question of by-passing London. I have said that central government will remain responsible for negotiations on the total amount of EU spending, and there will be issues of matched funding which will have to involve London; we will be copied into them. We are not talking about home rule for the regions. Those at the centre will need to know what is happening. It is not a question of by-passing London, but not all decisions will fall to be made in London.

The Earl of Onslow: Is the noble Lord saying that the EU will go to the regions and London will still interfere? That seems to impose a new wedge of bureaucracy. London will take the action and no decisions will be passed down. Is that what the Minister has just told me?

Lord Rooker: Although they are not completely analogous, we have examples in the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Authority. Although they are at a lesser level than the Scottish Parliament, which has the power to pass its own primary legislation, no one has ever come forward with examples of where the EU has by-passed London and London has been ignorant or interfered in a gross way. I grant the fact that the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Authority are not very old, but all our evidence to date is that those structures, which were approved by Parliament, seem to be working extremely well. There is no reason why they should not work in the English regions.

Lord Waddington: I am rather concerned by the Minister's efforts to calm the fears of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He may not have succeeded in his efforts.
	How many of the regions have already established offices in Brussels? I believe that a number have done so. One of the risks of this exercise is that there will be more and more traffic between the regions and Brussels. Regional committees will visit Brussels to try and screw out of the EU a greater share of regional funds than other regions expect to get. There will be war between the regions in their fight to get a better deal out of Brussels. Not only will this create a lot of bad blood; it will create a new bureaucracy such as we have never had before. We never had to have offices in Brussels until this mad idea of regional government raised its head. How many regions have already established offices in Brussels and what is it already costing us?

Lord Rooker: I shall need to come back to the issue of the paragraph to which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, referred. I have the answer to that now.
	The short answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is that I do not know.

Lord Waddington: I should be grateful if the Minister would find out.

Lord Rooker: I will find out. If there is an answer I shall give it to the noble Lord and to the Committee. I do not know about the regions, but I have a recollection that one or two cities have opened offices in Brussels. This is not a new issue. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, confirms that.
	People are arguing, "We want them to know about what we have got to offer. We want to share in this enterprise. We want to make sure that decisions are not taken in Brussels based on ignorance of what our city has got to offer". I do not see a problem with that.
	I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I got the paragraph number wrong. The Government intend to implement paragraph 4.31, which relates to the question he first asked.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Quite so. In which case, how can the Minister say to my noble friend Lord Onslow and the Committee, as he has done on several occasions, that there will be no new money? If paragraph 4.31 is followed, the regions will take over the process to which my noble friend Lord Waddington referred and they will be in competition for the purported munificence—the fraudulent munificence, of course—that flows from Brussels. How can the Minister be sure that there will not be a lot more money for certain regions and certain projects on conditions favoured by, let us call it, the European Union and not by Her Majesty's Government? I did not hear the Minister's previous answer. It was my fault because I was picking up on the mistake on the identity of paragraph 4.31. Will the British Government—leave aside, if you wish, Parliament—be able to intervene and say to the European Union that they do not want something funded or that the funds should be distributed in a different way? It is in this area that our sovereignty is clearly at risk.

Lord Rooker: I do not have a specific answer to that, but we have made it abundantly clear, so far as concerns the Treasury, the UK Budget and our books, that we are devolving for decision making things that already happen. That is why I can use the expression "no new powers". We are devolving, in the regions, more public scrutiny to the Government Offices, the government agencies and some of the government quangos—I do not say all—for those areas that will be covered by the slim, tightly run, well-audited English regional assemblies if they come about.
	I shall never be able to convince the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on any matter relating to Europe. He thinks that it is a bucket-load of crooks with loads of money which he thinks they have stolen from the member states and are giving out as largesse and stuffing people's pockets. I cannot have a debate on that basis. I do not think that that is a fair way of putting it.

The Earl of Onslow: Will the Minister accept that there has been just a tad of that? There has been a certain amount of jiggery-pokery in terms of Italian olive groves and overseas aid. I do not say that it is as bad as my noble friend Lord Pearson believes, but there has been a tad of that.

Lord Rooker: The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, makes the point that that whole edifice is constructed on what he keeps calling a "corrupt institution". I do not accept that. I am not arguing—I know what happened—about the Court of Auditors. I did not serve in MAFF for over two years without knowing a thing or two about what was happening over tobacco growers in Europe. It did not seem quite right. So there are those issues. But the fundamentals of the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, are such that I shall never be able to convince him.
	We are not planning on any new powers in the regions, which means that we do not justify any new money in the sense of it coming from the centre of government. We have made it clear that the regions will be able to precept the local authorities; and, in answer to the second question put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that the Government will take responsibility for the negotiations on the total amount of EU spending anyway.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I want to help the Minister and I want him to be able to help us. Therefore, I should like to refer back to the article that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote in The Times on 6th March. Perhaps I may read a paragraph from it. He stated:
	"With our plans to increase UK funding for regional policy, devolve decision-making power to the regions and return key regional policy responsibilities from the EU back to Britain, the future control of regional economic policy is moving from Brussels to London and then from Westminster to the nations and regions themselves".
	If some of us thought that that could be brought about, and that the Chancellor was indeed moving to remove powers from Brussels relating to regional policy and the allocation of funds—partly our taxpayers' funds—from Brussels to the regions; if we believed that that would be devolved from Brussels to our own Government and then to the regions, that might cast a different reflection on the debate.

Lord Rooker: I fear that I have still not got round to reading the Chancellor's article, but I have read reports about it and I know the thrust of it. The point is that that does not undermine paragraph 4.31 of the White Paper. That paragraph does not say that the regions will go to Brussels to negotiate for money. It says that they will take over the current role of the government officials who negotiate the detail of the single programming documents, and then the management of the funding in order to deliver the objectives of those documents. So paragraph 4.31 is fully consistent with what the Chancellor wrote in the article that my noble friend has quoted—obviously with great support on all sides of the Committee, which may enable us to make a little progress.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: But that is not what paragraph 4.31 says. I have it in front of me. I have already placed this on record twice in our debates. The Minister has quoted selectively, but the paragraph clearly says that,
	"the assembly will take over the role currently performed by Government Offices"—
	not officials—
	"on structural funds (including the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and rural programmes) for any structural fund expenditure for future programming periods. This would mean that the assembly"—
	not the Government any longer—
	"will chair the programme monitoring committee, play a key role in drawing up the single programme documents, and lead in negotiations on these programme documents with the European Commission".
	The Government do not come into it any more, do they?

Lord Rooker: So what? That is exactly what the regional assemblies will be there to do. I do not distinguish between government officials and the Government Offices. The government officials work in the Government Offices. There is a structure there, so that is a play on words. If the assemblies are carrying out the functions set out in paragraph 4.31, that is exactly the role that they are best placed to carry out for their region, on a regional basis, without it being done from London. I do not see what the problem is—obviously the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, does.

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord sees powers being taken away from Westminster and being given to the new heptarchy that is being created—"octarchy", to be accurate. That is a constitutional change. It may be a good idea, but there is a pretence that it is not a constitutional change and that it will not take power away from Westminster. To allow, let us say, Scunthorpe or whatever the "capital" of a region may be, to negotiate directly with Brussels seems to me to be a constitutional change. It would be wise if we did this with our eyes open, if we thought it a good idea. Some of us do not think that it is a good idea to take away powers from Westminster.

Lord Rooker: I return to the second point I made when I came to the more considered parts of my speech; namely, based on the briefing prepared for me rather than ad-libbing. The Constitution Committee of this House published its report on 12th February. The committee noted a number of constitutional implications. We accept that. But the committee did not highlight any particular effect on the UK Parliament. There are implications; the committee noted them; and this Committee has considered them. But there has been no great torrent from the committee saying: "Stop this Bill. It will wreck the UK Parliament". It did not say that. It is not as though the matter has not been considered by this House. It has.

Baroness Blatch: We hope that the Minister will continue to ad-lib. We find it much more revealing and certainly more refreshing than the notes that are written for him. It is characteristic of him to be his own man on the Front Bench opposite. The Minister may consider it a relief that the Committee stage of a Bill is, and always has been, a tiresome stage. On Report, the Minister will be able to engage his wit in slapping us all down and saying that we have already spoken on the matter once. So that is ahead of us.
	On a more serious note, perhaps I may take up the point made by the Minister about how regional government will work. If he is right—if the powers (I think that the word was not used correctly) are those of Westminster and the quango bodies will merely be an administrative arm of government and will make decisions only within parameters set by government, and if most of the major decisions will be ratified by government in one form or another—why go through this pain of having a trigger, setting up a Boundary Committee and reorganising local government? If no power is being ceded upwards from local government and no powers are coming down from national government, why go through this laborious, expensive, politically de-stabilising process? It seems to me that there is no argument.
	Secondly, the Minister, rightly and with some feeling, referred to the amount of time that we have spent on Clause 1. I am afraid that we shall probably spend quite a lot of time on Clause 2. These early clauses are important. They go to the heart of the Bill.
	It comes as some relief to know that the Minister checked at lunchtime that the Deputy Prime Minister will not be naming an area and exercising an order under Section 12 for at least a year. That is fine. But what is the hurry? Why must the Bill be through by 8th May? There is no hurry at all if the first regional assembly, even on a fast track, cannot be in place until 2006-07. I do not know why our usual channels—mine as well as the Minister's—want the Committee stage to be completed by Monday evening. That seems absurd, given the timetable to which the Minister referred and given that he has removed the meat of rumours that were fairly strong before we started our work today.
	We have some idea of what regional assemblies' functions will be. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is about to come before the House, and we understand that these bodies will be responsible for spatial planning, which is completely different. Why that should be such a divided subject across regional government and why there should be a separate regional quango, I do not know. But it would help us to know what free-standing decision-making powers a regional assembly would be able to exercise. If no powers are being ceded from below and no powers are ceding from above, that leaves regional assemblies as no more than an administrative arm of government, and for that we do not need such an elaborate system.
	The Minister rightly chided us all for not looking at the House of Lords Select Committee report. I have scanned it but I will look at it more carefully to see what it says. I believe there is a link in constitutional impact on the integrity of the United Kingdom as a whole when one considers what is being discussed in the Convention on the Future of Europe. For example, the convention is ceding powers in the areas of defence, foreign policy, law and economic policy. The Government may come to regret the incorporation of human rights because they are already beginning to fall foul of it. That has already ceded sovereignty from the parliamentary body to the courts and the judges.
	We went about House of Lords reform the wrong way. We did not determine the powers and functions of a second Chamber, ending up with the composition; we started with the composition, which was the wrong way round. That reform is having an impact on the relationship between the two Houses and the way in which Parliament operates as a whole.
	Regional assemblies will have an impact. Something is flagged up in the Select Committee report which we will look at carefully. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will also have an impact. As the Minister rightly reminded my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, it will go ahead, irrespective of regional assemblies. I accept that; it is a free-standing Bill, and whatever form this Bill takes, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will go ahead. But it is seriously paving—it emasculates the existing powers of the county councils, some of the district councils and some of the unitary authorities. I think the regional assemblies will compound all that.
	I understand what the Minister says about county functions but, reading the White Paper, some of the functions of the existing county councils will be carried out by regional assemblies.
	Whether one or more areas eventually has a regional assembly, there will be an impact on the nature, characteristics, powers and functions of this Parliament. If I am wrong and the Minister is right, why go through this elaborate process simply to turn an administrative arm into an elected assembly?
	Simply leaving everything to chance and seeing what happens when regional assemblies are in place is no way to legislate on constitutional change. We could have the worst of all possible worlds, with only some areas having regional assemblies. I think there will be great confusion.
	This is such an important issue that we will return to it on Report.

The Earl of Caithness: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, could the Minister reply to her point about the Bill's timetable? I apologise to the noble Lord for not being in my place this morning when he may have said something about it, but I was called out of the Chamber. Given the timetable that he has enunciated, why is there so much pressure to get the Bill through by early May?

Lord Rooker: I was going to respond to that point but I accepted that we would move on. I cannot be precise about individual dates. However, there are good and bad times of the year in which to hold referendums. At certain times of the year, because of purdah, one would not be allowed to do things. We all know when general elections can be held. There is a maximum period of five years but in general we are almost on a four-year cycle. I am not saying that the next election will be in 2005—I cannot be precise about that.
	It is public knowledge that if there were to be a referendum, autumn 2004 would be a suitable time. We have said that the Boundary Committee may need up to 12 months in which to do its work. The referendum period is about 10 or 12 weeks. It is easy to work back from autumn 2004 to see approximately when Royal Assent would be needed. Until we have Royal Assent the Deputy Prime Minister cannot make a statement about the judgment on the soundings. That does not mean that there is a rush, but if we did not do certain things early this summer, the possibility of holding a referendum in the autumn of 2004 would be ruled out. That takes us into 2005, when there may be a general election—I do not know—but there will be local government elections. So it is easy to work backwards.
	If there were a yes vote, primary legislation would have to be introduced. I suspect it would be a large Bill compared with this one. That is why I am fairly certain that the earliest possible date for setting up an assembly would be July 2006. Once we have agreed to do it and it is all set up, the elections have to take place. So the earliest possible time for an assembly to be established, on this time-scale, is 2006. That would mean requesting the Boundary Committee to start its work early this summer. One is talking about a very long process and no one can accuse the Government of rushing it. It is a natural progression—there must be time to take certain decisions and time for certain things to happen so that we are not accused of rushing matters. In addition, consultation will take place. I hope that is a satisfactory explanation of the Government's thinking on approximate dates.

Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps she can deal with a matter that has been touched on when she comes back with it. The amendment refers to the effects of regional government; it does not refer to the effects of the proposals as set out in the Bill. They are not necessarily the same thing.

Baroness Blatch: One problem with the Bill is that the whole process is triggered by Clause 1. I will have to read the Minister's speech carefully, as he has just contradicted himself. I expressed myself as relieved that the Deputy Prime Minister would not exercise an order under Section 12 for another year. He has to do so in order to start the process for the Boundary Committee; we know from the Minister that it will take a year to do its work. For a referendum to take place in the autumn of 2004, which the Minister said was the earliest date, an order will need to be made in June, July or August this year.
	I heard some rumours before lunch. The anxiety of the usual channels in this House to have the Bill finished by Monday is becoming clearer. The noble Lord refuted it, but we are going to get a statement soon after 8th May from the Deputy Prime Minister to allow a referendum to take place in the late summer or autumn of 2004.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness has got it right. The note that I have probably explains the situation a lot better than I did. I think it is fair to put this on the record. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding, particularly about Clause 12. I am not playing with words, but Clause 12 does not give order-making powers.
	There is a complicated chain of events before an elected assembly can be established. First, we need Royal Assent to this Bill. Then the Deputy Prime Minister needs a bit of time to consider in which region or regions to direct local government reviews—that is the direction, not an order under Clause 12. The local government reviews could take up to 12 months. Then the Secretary of State has to decide whether to order a referendum and lay and make the orders. The referendum process will take a minimum of 10 weeks and maybe more. It would be best not to work on minimum figures all the time. To guarantee a referendum in this Parliament we need early Royal Assent.
	If there is a "Yes" vote in a referendum, a main Bill will have to follow. That will need at least one year. Then there have to be elections to the assembly. That is why I said that at the earliest an assembly could not be set up before July 2006. That probably requires getting Royal Assent to this Bill in the not too distant future—early this summer or late spring this year, whatever definition one likes to make. I do not have a specific date to give, but the noble Baroness can see why an early date is required for all these long processes.

Baroness Blatch: My last word is that to spend three years on expensive, painstaking, laborious, politically disabling procedures in order to create an elected administrative arm of government is ludicrous. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Referendum question]:

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Before I call Amendment No. 26, I have to inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 27 to 31 for reasons of pre-emption.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"( ) The questions to be asked in a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1 are:
	1. "Should there be an elected assembly for the (insert name of region) region?"
	2. "Should county and district councils in your region be reorganised and replaced with unitary authorities responsible for delivering all local government services?""

Lord Hanningfield: As the Minister said, we have spent 11 hours on Clause 1. I trust that we are not going to spend a similar time on Clause 2. It is my job to introduce this very important first amendment to the clause. We have spent hours discussing the referendum. We are now discussing the question that will be put to the electorate in that referendum. We have just talked about the timetable. Assuming that the Government get their Bill through, there will be at least one referendum towards the end of next year.
	The Minister said firmly last week that if we had regional authorities there would be only one tier of government below that or nothing at all. I should like to explore that further. As I said last week, we should not talk lightly about the reorganisation of local government. We seem to have a thrill for local government reorganisation in this country. The United States and most European countries have systems of local government that have stood the test of time over 200 years. We seem to want to reorganise local government every 10 years. I did not agree with the Conservative government's reorganisation in the 1990s and I cannot agree to any reorganisation now. It detracts from providing services, which is what we should be about.
	The amendment would separate the issue of having a regional assembly from the reorganisation of local government. That is very important. The amendment would introduce a second referendum question giving people in two-tier areas a chance to express their view on whether local government should be reorganised.
	I have been through local government reorganisation twice. Services, staff and the public all suffer. As my noble friend Lady Blatch said a moment ago, the process could go on for two or three years before there was a regional assembly. Some areas of our country would be destabilised and disturbed for two or three years. Services would suffer as a result.
	We shall shortly start our consideration of the Local Government Bill during which we shall talk about the comprehensive performance assessment for councils. Many councils that will be reorganised will have been judged excellent or good in that assessment. We are going to tell the public that councils that have just been applauded by the Government and the Audit Commission will be destroyed. Most people who live in two-tier areas are happy to have county and district councils. They would not want local government to be reorganised for the sake of setting up a region. They should have the opportunity to say that.
	The proposal is particularly unfair to people in rural areas because those parts of the country can be dominated by the urban electorate. We talked about this last week. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that there would be differential turnout so the rural areas might be able to defeat the urban areas because more people would vote in rural areas. Let us look at the three areas that are most likely to have a referendum. The North East has a total of 2.5 million people. Only 800,000 of them live in the two counties of Durham and Northumberland. There would have to be an enormous differential turnout for the people in Northumberland and Durham to outvote the Newcastle and Sunderland conurbations. In the North West, which has a total of 6.7 million people, only 2.3 million live in the three great counties of Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria. That might seem a reasonable number, but it is still only one third of the total. The urban areas of Manchester and Merseyside comprise two thirds of the area. The situation is even worse in Yorkshire and Humberside. There are 5 million people in that area, but North Yorkshire has only 600,000 of them. Even with a 100 per cent turnout in North Yorkshire and a 12 or 14 per cent turnout in the rest of the area, North Yorkshire could still be outvoted. This is a denial of democratic principles. Those counties and districts could be destroyed without people being given a chance to make any comment. We feel very strongly that the question needs to be put to the public in a referendum. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: I am a little puzzled by Amendment No. 26. It seems to suggest that everyone in the region would be voting on the question of local government changes. My noble friend said that the clear intention is that people who live where there is a two-tier local government structure should be able to vote on it. That is dealt with in Amendment No. 48, which, for reasons I do not understand, is not grouped with these amendments. I would have thought that it should have been. People who live in a part of the region where there is a two-tier structure of local government should be able to vote on whether it is changed. I read the amendment as meaning that, even though it does not mean that on its own. It would mean that if Amendments Nos. 26 and 48 were carried.
	Amendment No. 31 is useful. People should be aware of the area for which the assembly they are being asked to vote for or against will be responsible. There is very little appreciation of what is included even in the North West. People in the south of Cheshire do not for a moment consider themselves part of an area that extends all the way to the Solway.

Lord Dixon: I mentioned this morning the result of a consultation carried out by Durham County Council. It had 7,000 responses. Support for holding a referendum was 66 per cent; 24 per cent were not in favour. Support for establishing an assembly was 66 per cent against 24 per cent. That is the two-tier authority on which I used to serve.

Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord tell us why the council is spending taxpayers' money at this stage, before the Bill has received Royal Assent, on surveying whether a referendum is wanted?

Lord Dixon: That is the consultative procedure laid down by the Government, who asked for responses.

Lord Waddington: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I am not quite sure what that has to do with my speech. At the moment, I am addressing the question of whether people in the south of Cheshire really consider themselves part of a North West that goes up to the Solway. I do not think that he knows whether I am right or wrong on that, and I do not blame him for that as it is not his part of the country.
	I want to raise again the extraordinary business of the Government not being prepared to look at the regional boundaries before any referendums are embarked on. I have looked into the matter since we discussed it a little while ago. I simply do not understand what the difficulty is. From Clause 26, one finds that,
	"a region is a region . . . specified in Schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998".
	The 1998 Act states in Section 25 that the Secretary of State may by order and after consultations,
	"make alterations in the extent of the regions".
	He could embark on consultations right now and, in a matter of months, come to conclusions that would at least get rid of some of the more outrageous anomalies. If that were done, we would be dealing to a large extent with the mischief that is obvious to us all. For the time being, it is obviously essential that when people go into the polling booths they should be made aware of what on earth the strange area is, for which there will be an elected body if they vote yes.

Lord Greaves: The group of amendments is headed by Amendment No. 26, but there are four Liberal Democrat amendments in it. The substantive one is Amendment No. 38, which would leave out lines 33 to 36 of page 2. The other three are consequential on that.
	Amendment No. 38 tackles the same problem in a different way. Again it is about the fact that, in the Bill, the Government are combining the establishment of regional assemblies with a reorganisation of local government into unitary authorities in those parts of the region affected that at the moment have a two-tier local government system. We discussed the principle of that in considerable detail last Thursday, and I do not think that there is any point in discussing it all again at this stage, although we may wish to come back to it later.
	Amendment No. 38 would remove the second part of the preamble or statement that accompanies the referendum question. The first part states that,
	"the elected assembly would be responsible for a range of activities".
	That is an interesting wording, given the limited powers available in the Bill, but we can come back to that later. The second part states that,
	"local government would be reorganised into a single tier in those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils. There would be no such reorganisation of other local authorities in the region".
	That is in line with our wish to decouple the two issues and leave it up to local people to decide what structure of local government they want, if they get a regional assembly and after they have got one. We want to remove the lines from the preamble because we would not want them to be part of the conditions for having a regional assembly. That is fairly straightforward and is something that may gain support in the Committee.
	So far as the Conservative amendments are concerned, Amendment No. 26 sets out two questions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, we would think their wording not ideal, but the principle behind them is absolutely clear. It is one that we support, so we would certainly support the amendment if the Conservatives put it to the vote today.
	Amendment No. 31 gives sensible clarification, setting out what the region consists of in the statement. It may be thought that the scale and passion of the referendum campaign will be such that everyone will know about all such matters by the time that they vote. I would not be totally certain that they would know which region covered exactly which area, and it would not be silly to include on the ballot paper a definition of the region proposed to be set up. We would therefore support that amendment as well.

Lord Elliott of Morpeth: I wish only to make a point that I made in a speech at Second Reading. The vast county of Northumberland is very big territorially, but not in terms of population. My noble friend said that the population of Northumberland and Durham numbered 800,000. If I get it right, and I think that I do, Northumberland has only 300,000 people.
	The second part of Amendment No. 26 asks whether county and district councils should be reorganised and replaced with unitary authorities. It is quite obvious that the eventual aim of the legislation is unitary authorities. That has been made very clear. We are to have no more three-tier authorities, so if we are to have regional bodies and if the individual councils are to remain in being, there will eventually be only the regional authority and district councils. If the district councils were to lose their powers, a county such as Northumberland would be affected. It would be very bad for those who live way apart from the south-east corner of Northumberland where most of the population is. The local councils further north are very important.
	I see a great problem in the future of a unitary authority, which will be either a regional authority or the county council. If it is a regional authority, the county council goes. If the local councils remain, they will be all right but remote from the major body, the new regional authority.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I should like to add a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. Like him I am a county councillor, although in Suffolk, and as such declare an interest. I hope that the Minister will accept that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and I as leaders and so on suffered from the previous local government review, which was botched because it was not properly thought through. No one gained from it. There were considerable losers, not least people in areas where nothing changed but there were three years of uncertainty. We would certainly be keen to see that situation avoided.
	At the Committee's previous sitting last Thursday, the Minister made it clear that the Government's position was that unitary status was non-negotiable in the context of the Bill. If we have a regional assembly, we have to have a regional tier underneath. That had nothing to do with performance or ideal structures, but was simply to deal with a perception of over-government. The Government do not want to give anyone the opportunity to say that the Bill creates an extra tier.
	Of course, the benefit of Amendment No. 26 is that it leaves the choice up to the people affected. If they decide that they would like an extra tier of government, that is their decision and it makes it much harder for them to then complain about the addition of an extra tier. I hope that the Government will give that some very serious consideration. It seems absolutely right to us on these Benches, and clearly to Conservative Members of the Committee, that local people and not the Government should decide the structure of local government in their areas.

The Earl of Caithness: I echo what the Minister said earlier; that is, that he wants to get government closer to the people and done by the people. The one thing that would destroy what he wants would be to take away district councils.
	The Minister said that it was easy to raise any matter in this Chamber. I will take that opportunity, although he knows what I am going to say, but I do not expect him to reply this evening. I take noble Lords up to Scotland, where we suffered horribly from the local government review. Caithness is dominated by Inverness, which is a good two or two-and-a-half hours' drive away. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield mentioned the disparity in populations in England. Exactly the same situation as is proposed in this context has happened in Scotland. We have seen examples of it and learnt to live with it. It is not a terribly happy experience. I regret what the Conservative government did to local government in Scotland; they removed democracy from the local people. I therefore hope that the Minister will think again in this regard; it is absolutely fundamental to the Bill.
	While I am on my feet, I jog the Minister's memory about our first day in Committee. He said that he would look again at whether the boundaries of metropolitan areas could be examined. We discussed that and he saw the logic of what we were saying. Has he given that any further consideration?

Baroness Hanham: As I understand it, one of the rationales of the Bill is to give democratic legitimacy to the Government Offices for the Regions through various activities and the organisations that spin off underneath them. One could give democratic legitimacy to the regions if one wished without fouling up all of the rest of local government beneath them. It is extremely important that people within the areas that will be changed—the counties and districts—have an opportunity to comment on that. After all, they probably do not currently know or worry much about the regions. If they are electing a small number of people to act on their behalf, that queries democratic legitimacy. It is important that the Government consider the need to ensure that people understand the implications of what they are voting for—if they do not do so, we may help them. The way in which to do that is to give them two questions.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on regional boundaries. I keep going back to the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission. I have memories of that and of the reason why it failed to deal with the problem. One reason why we had the 1974 debacle was because the Department of Education laid down that one could not run an education authority with fewer than 500,000 people. That was always a nonsense. There were many good local authorities: Reading, where I was the leader, was one of them. It was an excellent local authority with a population of about 125,000 and it led the country in providing education for the deaf and in many other innovations. Because of that restriction, we got a form of local government that was not suitable to the country. It failed and had to be reviewed shortly after.
	My point is that the number of regions and their boundaries is absolutely crucial. The Committee knows very well that I believe that regional government is completely unnecessary but, whatever one's views on that, if the Government want regional government to be successful, they must ensure that the boundaries and compatibility of the areas are correct in the first place. If one does not get them right, one will have perpetual trouble. It would help the Government if they trust in regional authorities to get it right from the start and not make the same mistakes as were made with the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission in, I believe, 1968. It was stymied by the insistence of the Department of Education that there must be 500,000 people to have a viable education authority. That was absurd.

Lord Hanningfield: I want to comment on Amendment No. 31. Although I said this morning that we do not want to look at all of the polls and that one can present whatever figures one wants, I point out that even in the North East, in the poll to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, referred this morning, more than 50 per cent did not know what region they lived in now. That was supposed to have had much publicity and support in the North East. We tabled Amendment No. 31 so that people would at least be told on the ballot paper what region they live in. We joke about Essex but a recent survey there showed than fewer than 5 per cent thought that they lived in the eastern region. People in Cheshire do not know which region they are in. The ballot paper should state on it what region one is in and what one is voting for.
	I want to say more about Northumberland; people must defend it—

Lord Greaves: I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening and thank him for giving way. I am intrigued to know where the other 95 per cent in Essex thought that they lived.

Lord Hanningfield: The 120,000 who come to London every day thought that they were more associated with London than with anywhere else. The majority thought that they lived in the South-East rather than the East of England.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Really?

Lord Hanningfield: Yes.
	Northumberland needs people to defend it. Geographically, it is a very large county. As my noble friend said, it has only about 300,000 people. It has six district councils, with an average of only about 50,000 each, but the geographical area in each of those district councils is considerable. They serve their people very well. Northumberland as a unitary would be an extremely big geographical area and it would be difficult for it to be a unitary county. People already feel dominated by Newcastle; they feel that Newcastle gets all of the resources and is looked after better. It is important that we give some support to those areas. They feel threatened by the continued dominance of the urban area in places such as the North East. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

Lord Rooker: I begin by getting out of the way the issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which was also raised last week. All of our deliberations are reported back to policy Ministers—Nick Raynsford and colleagues. Several noble Lords discussed the boundary review not being able to consider an existing unitary authority that happened to be in an area. My response was practical: I said that I would take away the issue for consideration. We are considering it but it is much too early to come back with an answer; we are still at Committee stage, as it were. However, the issue has been taken on board.
	Amendment No. 26 gives an additional separate question. I stress that the question is separate and is not linked to the first question. I agree that it is unfortunate that, with regard to the two separate questions and Amendments Nos. 27 and 29, the amendments relating to the second question ended up in another group of amendments which we shall consider later. I am not responsible for the grouping of amendments. I wish that there was more conformity with groups of amendments in this House. That is something we could learn from another place. The grouping structure there makes for more concise debate. One does not have the same debate, split over several groups. Sometimes, with our groupings, one may miss points or be excessively repetitive.
	We made clear that the move to single-tier local government is an integral part of the package. I do not desist from saying that without the rationalisation, the regional assembly will add extra complexity to another layer of government. We want a clear division of responsibilities between the tiers, and clear lines of accountability.
	I have never been a councillor, but I know that forming a structure for local government is a serious issue. Local government delivers services to people in a much closer way than does central government. I understand that, having been a Member in another place. I have lived through local government changes in Birmingham. We do not want this to be a hit and miss or pick and mix affair. I am horrified at the implications made in a couple of speeches that people should be allowed to fix their own number of layers. People would divide up the parishes in some areas, and local government would grow like Topsy—completely out of control.
	One needs to take a good strategic view. One question, with the full implications made clear to voters, avoids the ambiguity. Getting across the implications of the answer to one question is fundamental.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am genuinely perplexed by the Minister's comments. I understand him to mean that, if we allow people the choice, layers of government will grow like Topsy. His position has always been that the concern would be about over-government; I find it difficult to believe that people could complain about over-government and then choose to create more tiers. How can the Minister have it both ways?

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness used a good example in her speech. She said that she was content that people should be allowed to vote for extra tiers of government—that was their choice. We do not believe that extra tiers of government are a good idea. I made that point on Second Reading.
	This is a political issue as much as anything else. We are not having extra tiers of government; it is as simple as that. We would rather not proceed with the Bill than have that happen. The price of having elected regional assemblies is having a single tier—the best form of single tier we can get. That is why we need the boundary review. This is a political issue, and I have no mathematical or intellectually coherent formula to justify it—it is raw politics. We are not having extra tiers.
	To the best of my knowledge, in any other local government reorganisation there have not been many votes by the people concerned. I do not remember there being town polls or anything of that sort in past local government reorganisations, although those reorganisations have occurred frequently. In fact, they have occurred more frequently than they should have done. I accept that.
	Amendment No. 31 adds to the end of the referendum question. One has to be careful about the form of words used here. We were told that people do not know what region they live in. The Government's question, which some think inadequate but which was agreed by the Electoral Commission, is set out in Clause 2. The ballot paper will say:
	"'Should there be an elected assembly for the . . . region?'"
	The name of the region would be inserted—for example, it would say, "for the north-east region". Do Members of the Committee not think that a ballot paper including that question might tell the voter which region they live in? The question mentions the name of the region, so the difficulty of knowing which region people are in is overcome.
	Amendment No. 31 goes wider and lists,
	"counties, metropolitan boroughs and unitary authority districts",
	that comprise the region. I have some sympathy with that aim. Sometimes it is difficult to explain to people where their constituency boundaries are. They are incoherent for reasons of history and geography. I understand that Members of the Committee want voters to be aware not only of the name of the region but how it is made up—what is in the north-east or south-east region? As one noble Lord said, a person living in Banbury might not know that Broadstairs is in the south-east region. However, a ballot paper is not the place to give such information.
	The Government will publish that kind of factual information, including the powers and size of the assembly and the counties that make up the region. At that point, the proposed changes will come in from the boundary review. I emphasise that because the Government will have to say what they are going to do with those proposals, the default being to accept them, as they come from an independent body, but not necessarily so.
	The proposals must be distributed. We will ensure that the document is delivered to each household in advance of the referendum. It will include information not only about the name of the region but about how it is made up, and which authorities are included in it. People should have that information before they vote as it informs them of the implications of the possible changes to the local government structure. The document will tell people about the two-tier structures that are to become one-tier and how those structures have been formed after a year-long deliberation.

Lord Greaves: The Minister said that the boundary review recommendations did not have to be accepted by the Government but did have to be put to the people in the referendum. There seems to be some conflict there.

Lord Rooker: The proposals for the boundary review—the Government's view of what is planned for the boundaries—will be put to people at the referendum. The Boundary Committee will be asked to come up with the best available form of single-tier government. In the main, the Government would probably accept that as the default, but the provision is such that the Secretary of State will have to take a view on what comes to him from the boundary review. I am making that distinction because many of the amendments refer to the results of the boundary review.

Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister give way?

Lord Rooker: I shall in a moment, because I can see the question coming. The question that should be asked in the House during scrutiny should not be about the possible recommendation from the Boundary Committee but what the Government will do with that recommendation. In the main—in most cases if not all—the Government would accept a proposal from an independent body asked to do a job based on a list of rules and within the parameters asked of it. That would be the proposal that we would put to the House and to the people of a region. However, that may not happen in every case.

Baroness Blatch: The Minister will know about the relevant point better than I do, as it was a point that exercised the Select Committee. There is no scope whatever for a voter to have a view about the Boundary Committee review of local government. The only question they are asked is, "Do you want a regional assembly?" One goes with the other, without any form of modification whatever.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness has got it absolutely right. One is the price of the other, and that is what people must weigh in the balance. If they do not like the implications for local government and that, to them, is the most important aspect of their community and their lives, they would vote "No". They would seek to prevent from happening the local government changes that are part and parcel of the elected regional assembly.
	I do not know which regions will be chosen. I cannot know that, because I have not seen the soundings, but people seem fairly certain about which regions will have a referendum. There are eight regions, four of which have a much greater population in the two-tier areas than in the single-tier areas and four of which have a much greater population in the single-tier areas than in the two-tier areas. It just so happens that it is four regions to four. Of course, noble Lords only talk about one set of four and not the other. In other parts of the country, an overwhelming percentage of the population—up to 88 per cent in one case—live in two-tier authorities. If they thought that maintaining that structure was more important than gaining a regional assembly, they would vote "No". That is the price of the package and people will have to make that judgment. As long as they are given all the information and are made aware of the implications of their vote, our electorate and citizenry are sufficiently mature to make that judgment.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for those comments. I share the view of other noble Lords that the Minister has been fair in most of his responses. However, I am very disappointed with parts of his last response. Several noble Lords are members of local government and know what providing services in local government is all about. Local government reorganisation seems to be spoken of lightly, almost as a purely paper exercise. However, problems often arise not from implementing reorganisation but from talking about it. The Minister said that people can vote against creating a region if they do not like the reorganisation, but he has missed the point. We will have spent a year talking about reorganisation. It is that year of discussion that will cause disturbance and affect services.
	Before coming to the Committee this morning I had a meeting in Essex, where each day we support about 20,000 disabled and elderly people in their homes. We are desperately short of care workers, but we were examining how we might improve the services for those people. If there were a reorganisation, the staff who work for the local authority would be worried about their jobs. We do not want a year of that. I was therefore disappointed by our discussion because we have missed the point. Discussion of reorganisation is just as bad as reorganisation. If there is a referendum in the North East at the end of next year, there will be a year of disturbance in Northumberland, for example, in which services are not provided properly and the elderly and school children suffer. The Minister clearly has not been in local government. If he had, he would understand that. He talked so lightly about reorganisation.
	Such consequences are why other countries do not reorganise. The United States has had a stable system since independence. It has about six tiers of government from the Senate downwards. France has introduced regionalism, but it did not disturb the underlying structure. It wants to provide services. We talk so lightly of reorganisation without realising what it will do to the services that we provide. That is why we who are also elected councillors want to try to provide decent services. That is what it is about. So I was very disappointed by those comments.
	The Minister said that the issue was totally political. It should not be totally political, but about the services that we provide. If the Government want regional government, I see no harm at all in having sufficient underlying tiers to provide decent local government.
	The government review will take some time. I should like a little more clarity on that. I think that the Minister said that the final decision on reorganisation will be taken by the Secretary of State rather than in the boundary review. Perhaps he will confirm that. That is slightly worrying as well. If we go through all the processes of a boundary review but the Secretary of State does not make the change, there will be even greater disturbance.

Lord Rooker: We have not changed the rules. The same arrangements have applied in every review, including the parliamentary review. They may have been changed once by a Home Secretary. I want to be clear about this. I do not want anyone to accuse me of not explaining the consequences. In the past few days, noble Lords have concentrated almost exclusively on the results of the boundary review. Although those results are very important, the ballot paper will reflect what the Government do with those results. I honestly thought that I should draw attention to that fact, but there is nothing new about it. The Secretary of State will express his view after the Boundary Committee reports to him in due course.

Lord Hanningfield: That causes me even more consternation about the uncertainty of the whole process. However, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he wanted the ballot paper to set out clearly the options for voters. In later amendments, we deal with the matter of cost. Enormous costs will be incurred not only in establishing the assembly but in reorganising the area. The reorganisation will be much more costly than the assembly. I was therefore pleased to hear the Minister say that the public should know precisely what they are voting for. We shall return to that issue.
	The Minister mentioned the four more rural regions. Those areas will require even more reorganisation. As I said, there is great concern about the prospect of a year's reorganisation in the East of England or in the South East in order to destroy the districts or the counties. Much more reorganisation will be required in more rural areas than in urban ones.
	I was pleased to hear that the Liberal Democrats support this type of amendment. I agree that the wording should perhaps be tightened up a little and be a little more self-explanatory. I think that we will return to this type of amendment at Report stage. I think that the amendment will be pursued, although I shall not press it today. I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 31. He did not give all the answers that we seek, but we can return to the issue when we discuss the exact wording for the referendum. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Before I call Amendment No. 28, I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 29 to 43 for reasons of pre-emption.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 2, line 20, leave out from "order" to end of line 36 and insert "shall be determined by the Electoral Commission"

Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 28 is grouped with Amendment No. 33, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Amendment No. 28 offers another approach to skinning this cat of a question. In this amendment, we want to explore the proposal that the Electoral Commission should determine the question. At this point, I shall talk about "a question" but noble Lords will understand that, in our view, two would be much clearer.
	Of course, I accept that the issue of the yes/no answer is political but, now that we have an Electoral Commission, it seems to us that the presentation of the question is squarely within its competence. In fact, our amendment covers both the question and the preamble. It does so because the clearer the question, the less detailed and complex the preamble may be. I deliberately put them that way round.
	That is the simple proposition, but I hope that at this stage the Minister can tell the Committee what advice the Electoral Commission has given thus far on the presentation of the question and the preamble, which we shall debate in more detail shortly. I hope that, before bringing the Bill before Parliament, the Government held discussions with the Electoral Commission on what, as I said, seems to be a matter on which it is not only well placed but best placed to advise. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: I support the Liberal Democrat amendment and shall speak to our Amendment No. 33, which is along the same lines. We feel strongly that the Electoral Commission rather than the Government should determine the wording on the ballot paper for the referendum. The Electoral Commission is a neutral body. I refer to what the Minister said in response to the debate on the previous amendment—that is, all the information should be set out fairly so that people have a fair choice in their vote. The Electoral Commission must be the best body to decide the exact wording. Therefore, I commend Amendment No. 33, which, as I said, is very similar to Amendment No. 28 tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

Lord Waddington: I do not say for one moment that the noble Lord may not have good reason to criticise the precise form of Amendment No. 33. But I should have thought that we are pushing at an open door when we say that the statement in Clause 2(2) is far too bland. It cannot be sufficient to state before the question on the ballot paper,
	"local government would be reorganised into a single tier in those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils",
	when, by then, the conclusions of the Boundary Committee will be known. I should have thought that it would be very much in the interests of the Government, and certainly in the interests of those in favour of an elected regional assembly, to spell out the matter far more clearly.
	I shall give the Minister an example. I may be wrong but I believe that in Lancashire there would be far less resistance to local government reorganisation which turned the county council area into a unitary authority than to carving up the country part of Lancashire and giving a third to one big borough, a third to another big borough and a third to another big borough, where the country interest would be completely overwhelmed by the urban areas.
	Therefore, I should have thought—of course, it would depend on the conclusion of the Boundary Committee—that in many circumstances it would be greatly to the advantage of the Government and to those in favour of elected assemblies, and certainly to the advantage of the elector, if, in a concise statement above the question, the conclusion of the Boundary Committee was set out. For example, it might state that in the case of Lancashire such and such a district council area will go in with Blackburn, such and such a district council area will go in with Preston, and such and such a district council area will go in with Blackpool, or whatever it may be.
	Therefore, I hope that if the Minister does not feel able to accept this precise amendment, he will go away and consider the possibility of a far more comprehensive statement preceding the question on the ballot paper, setting out in concise terms the effect of the conclusions of the Boundary Committee.

Lord Hanningfield: Before the Minister replies, I should add that, as well as the Boundary Committee's work—a matter to which we referred a great deal during debate on the previous few amendments—we also talked at considerable length during the first debates in Committee about the functions of the region. The intention of the second part of our Amendment No. 33 is that the Electoral Commission should also set out the functions and powers of the region. We have had considerable debate about that over the past two days of the Committee stage.

Lord Rooker: I hope that I can give noble Lords answers that will make them happy. I wish we were at the point of having a referendum somewhere as I would have one of the leaflets that will be delivered to every household in the region. They will explain how the region is made up; what its powers are; what the assembly's functions would be; and other matters. Our intention is not to put that on the ballot paper but to produce a document that spells out all these issues which will be presented to every household in the area before the referendum.
	I accept that we have to have the main Bill. As regards Amendment No. 33, voters must be aware of the intended scope of the responsibilities of those elected assemblies when casting their votes in referendums. The only way they can be made aware is by a publication put through the door and not one they have to go and collect themselves. We need to overcome the inertia. It must be done that way and that is what we intend to do. It cannot be done on the ballot paper and it would be too late if it was presented at the polling booth. First, one would be presenting it only to people who turned up to vote; and, secondly, we want to increase turnout. So we would make sure that the document was produced well in advance.
	I want to turn to the central point. There seems to be a misunderstanding. Through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, Parliament gave life to the Electoral Commission. The commission's role is to comment on the intelligibility of UK, national and regional referendum questions and to be consulted where the question or preamble is set by subordinate legislation.
	The Act does not give the commission the responsibility to set the question. That is understandable because it is supposed to be a body that is above the fray. The people appointed to the commission need to be as independent as possible. Without giving them a veto, they should be able to comment on the wording of the preamble and if they do not like it to say so publicly. Woe betide a government who go against a strong recommendation of the commission and change what it proposes.
	The commission has been consulted on the question and the preamble and is satisfied. Changes were made in another place. This matter is dealt with in another group of amendments and although I have read them all I do not remember where. Clause 2 sets out the preamble. I would hate to go to a polling station and to be met with the preamble set out that way on the ballot paper. One can use that wording but lay it out better. The intention is to produce the preamble in bullet point form without changing the meaning in any way, so it is easier to read. In other words, we will tabloid it, so one can read it at a glance rather than having to read a short essay.
	This has all been agreed with the commission as the intelligibility of the proposal is fairly fundamental. We have a degree of sympathy with the issues raised today. I accept that the preamble is relatively short. Our intended operation and the process and the documents that we will publish meet the spirit, and in some cases the actual letter, of what noble Lords have put to the Committee today. That being so, looking at the groupings, I have no doubt we will have the same debate a few more times before we finish. I shall return to the matter if need be. But I hope, having set the scene, that the spirit is there and that we are at one. But we shall do it in a practical way.
	It would be quite wrong to give the commission the power to write the question. That would go against its grain. It would remove its watchdog and scrutiny roles and reduce the force of its arguments and power if there was something with which it was extremely unhappy. There would be one hell of a row about it outside as well as inside both Houses.

Lord Hanningfield: On Amendment No. 33, I think we were pleased to hear some of the noble Lord's comments. I am sure that we shall return to this matter, as he said, several more times in Committee and at later stages. Obviously the information that goes to the electorate will be very important indeed. If pamphlets are acceptable, by whom will they be written? Or, if they are to be political pamphlets, there will be various bodies which will be keen on them. But the information that goes to the public is very important. It needs to be neutral and full. It needs to include the aspects of local government reorganisation and we think that it should include costs. It should certainly state strongly what the region is going to do. We suggest that it should be done after the passing of an Act of Parliament setting out the powers and responsibilities of a region. That information is important. The Minister has not spelled out exactly how that will happen. Perhaps he, too, will give the matter some further thought before the following stages of the Bill, because we shall obviously keep returning to it. As I said, the process must be independent and understandable by the electorate, so that they know what they are voting for.
	So although I shall not press our amendment, we shall keep returning to the issue until we have some clear answers about what the public will be told before they vote.

Baroness Hamwee: Like the Minister, I know that there is an amendment somewhere that deals with information, but I cannot quite remember which it is.
	It is absolutely right and proper to put booklets through household doors. But from my experience twice in London—in the case of the referendum and then the actual election—and, most recently, twice with the mayor's scheme for congestion charging, all of which involved booklets through doors, I know that the Royal Mail target rate for delivery is about 87 per cent. It is certainly not accurate. I know that London SW14, where I live, was ignored on all those occasions. But that is not central to my amendment.
	The Minister has answered and unanswered my question. He told us that the Electoral Commission has read the question proposed in the Bill and has given it a clean bill of health. I am happy with that, which obviously answers my question. He unanswered the question when he said that there would be a hell of a row if, at a later, more formal stage, the Electoral Commission—

Lord Rooker: It is my fault; I am just too open. I was then discussing the role of the commission and why it should not have power to write the question. Its power lies in approving the question and the preamble. If it does not like it and the Government do not want to change it, that is when there would be a hell of a row. However, in this case, it has approved both the question and the preamble, as set out in the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee: My point was that if there was a hell of a row after the Bill, including that question, had been passed that would not help us. However, I have received the assurance that I need and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Before calling Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, I must inform the Committee that there is a mistake in the Bill's line numbering. I should make clear that Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are to the question within quotation marks.

[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Before calling Amendment No. 32, I must inform the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 34 to 43, for reasons of pre-emption.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2).

Baroness Hamwee: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 and 42. Perhaps a little unrealistically, the lead amendment proposes to delete the preamble, because the question should stand or fall on its own and be intelligible without explanation.
	I am not wholly confident that voters, seeing a lot of words in front of them, will do more than read the headline question. I do not know whether the Government have undertaken any research on how a question with such a preamble would be received. I am sure that there are testing techniques that could assist him in looking at such an issue.
	The Minister alluded to the complexity of the preamble. I suggest that not only the Electoral Commission but the Plain English Campaign might have a role in that regard. It is lawyers' language—and I speak as one—to use such phrases as:
	"If an elected assembly is to be established, it is intended that:".
	It is not the sort of language that prompts many to read on.
	Amendment No. 34, the second amendment in the group, would delete the words in parentheses,
	"in as nearly as may be the following form".
	The amendment gives us the opportunity to hear from the Government why they inserted those words. They did so in the House of Commons without any debate on the matter. We may already have the answer in that bullet points are used to present the preamble differently as a result of advice taken. I hope that the Minister can tell the House why those words were inserted and what is in the Government's mind when they say,
	"as nearly as may be".
	There are all sorts of different forms that could be similar to that set out in the Bill. What would require the form to be changed?
	Amendment No. 42 would permit the Electoral Commission's involvement after the Bill's enactment. We have almost covered that point. If the Minister wishes to add anything, no doubt he will do so. I beg to move Amendment No. 32.

Lord Hanningfield: We on the Conservative Benches do not agree with this amendment. I support the Liberal Democrats in highlighting our discussion on earlier amendments about the need to look again clearly at the referendum question to ensure that the public understand what they are asked to vote on, the intention of the vote, and the information on it that goes out. We have tabled further amendments on that subject. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he and the Government are open to reviewing the matter to ensure that the question is understandable and that people know what they are letting themselves in for.

The Earl of Onslow: Did the Bills providing for referendums in London, Scotland and Wales include such a preamble? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the English used is appalling. It is full of all sorts of sub-clauses and unnecessary subjunctives. Is that normal in Bills of this kind?

Baroness Blatch: I hope that my noble friend does not succumb to accept the amendment. First, if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were successful in getting rid of the preamble, the question would be almost a confidence trick on the people of England. It is very different from the referendum in Scotland. Scottish voters were asked only two questions: whether they wanted a Parliament and whether they wanted it to have tax-raising powers. But they were not at the same time agreeing a massive reorganisation of government below the tier of Parliament.
	I argue that the major part of the reorganisation in England is not the imposition of a regional assembly but the complete upheaval of local government. That is pertinent to people and should form part of the question. We have just withdrawn an amendment to that effect.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the words in parentheses,
	"in as nearly as may be the following form",
	give the Government scope to change the wording agreed by the Electoral Commission. I worry about the scope given. There is no definition of what would be,
	"as nearly as may be".
	Would it go back to the Electoral Commission for approval?

The Earl of Onslow: I am pleased to say that my noble friend can rest assured: I am just as worried as she is about the consequences of local government reorganisation. We have been round the steeplechase before. There should be a separate referenda amendment. That does not mean that this clause is not sloppily drafted, badly written and probably unclear.

Lord Rooker: I apologise for any confusion that I might have caused in the previous debate. I know that it sounds daft, but I referred to the preamble being in bullet point form, and anybody who has an up-to-date version of the Bill will see a couple of bullet points. I was carrying around the Bill as it was in another place, in which there were no bullet points.
	We are not trying to pull a fast one here. I must make that clear. Amendment No. 34 is based on suspicion about the words,
	"in as nearly as may be the following form".
	There was no opportunity to explain the purpose of the words in another place. There is no sinister purpose. The words will not allow the wording of the statement to be changed. Subsection (2) goes on to say that the statement,
	"must precede the question on the ballot paper".
	It is unfortunate that, in Clause 2, the question is printed at subsection (1) and the preamble is printed at subsection (2). On the ballot paper, it will be the other way round, as is made clear. Subsection (2) says:
	"The following statement . . . must precede the question".

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord has just said that the clause is unsatisfactorily printed. By that, does he mean that he will take it away, write it so that we can all understand it and put in back in the Bill in the proper order? That is the logical conclusion of what he said. I know that the Minister listens to what people say and takes it into account. I know that, when he says that something is silly, he means that it is silly. That is the logical conclusion of what he said.

Lord Rooker: No—far from it. If I did that, I would be criticising the parliamentary draftsman. In a clause on the referendum question, the question should be put first, and that is what the parliamentary draftsman has done. That is why we have subsection (1), and the preamble is set out in subsection (2). On the ballot paper, they will be set out the other way round, as is clearly stated. The preamble will appear in bullet point form, leading to the question on which the voter is required to give a view. That is the only point that I was making.
	The phrase,
	"in as nearly as may be the following form"
	is a technical device to ensure that the statement that is to precede the question will contain the bullet points, when it appears on the ballot paper. That is the point. It is to get over a technicality, and we are not pulling a fast one.
	As I made clear, the role of the Electoral Commission is to comment on the intelligibility of the issue. The commission suggested that bullet points would improve the structure of the preamble, and we agreed that it would be helpful. It makes sense that, in due course, the ballot paper also reflects the bullet point structure used in the Bill.
	Making Amendment No. 42 would mean that the referendum question and the accompanying statement could be,
	"amended by regulation at any time after the Electoral Commission has made a report to the Secretary of State regarding the question and the statement".
	Those regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. Under Section 104 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the commission has a statutory obligation to comment on the intelligibility of UK national and regional referendum questions and of any statement preceding them that are contained in Acts of Parliament. As I said, the Electoral Commission has commented on the question and the statement and is content with the current wording.
	However, Amendment No. 42 is unclear as to whether the Electoral Commission would need to be consulted on any amended question that the Secretary of State proposes. In effect, the amendment could mean that the question and statement could be amended after the first region or regions have held referendums, so that the question and statement are different for subsequent regions.
	I do not think that that would be a good idea. It would be wrong to circumvent the Electoral Commission, but it would also be wrong if later the basic ground rules were changed for other regions, should there be other regions. We must treat them all equally in this respect, so that Parliament has the opportunity to debate everything before this, the primary legislation, goes through. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee feel that they can withdraw their amendment. I hope that the explanation and the words added, but not debated, in another place, are satisfactory.

Baroness Hamwee: I have no problem with the question appearing in the Bill before the proposed preamble. That is sensible. If on the ballot paper it was not to be a preamble but to follow the question, it would be called something other than a preamble—perhaps a postscript.
	I hope that the Minister has not been using the previous version of the Bill throughout this Committee stage. I should hate to think that we shall have to go back through all the amendments and debate them again because the Minister has been referring to different lines.
	I am still a little confused. If the Electoral Commission has now said that bullet points, or blobs, are helpful to make the preamble clear—I agree that they are—why do we still have,
	"in as nearly as may be the following form"?
	If the work has been done and, having gone through this consultation process, the Secretary of State has taken on board the comments made by the Electoral Commission, why are those words still needed?

Lord Rooker: It is a technical point. I suspect that it is because the words "The following statement" in subsection (2) means the words. The statement may not include the bullet points. The bullet points are the layout and the phrase,
	"in as nearly as may be the following form"—
	namely, the layout—is to cover that. It is purely a technical means of setting out the ballot paper so that it is easier to read. The words will not change.

Baroness Hamwee: I accept that. I do not know why parliamentary counsel is so paranoid or precise that he or she feels that if the line endings happen to come at slightly different points, this technical approach is needed to cover that. But there we go. It is not—

Lord Rooker: No.

Baroness Hamwee: I am about to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Rooker: No, let us be serious about this. Once the Bill has obtained Royal Assent someone who wanted to be a troublemaker might claim that "The following statement" must appear. He may say that the typesize must be the same or the line-spacing must be the same, whereas the form in which it appears to make it more legible—more white space, a better typeface—is the form,
	"in as nearly as may be the following form".
	We are not allowing troublemakers—barrack-room lawyers—to come along and mess this up. Therefore, those words are needed to overcome any technical problems in order to lay out the same words in an understandable form. Not that I would dream of referring to Members of the Committee as troublemakers, of course.

Baroness Hamwee: It depends which way the wind is blowing. That is extremely helpful. I am grateful to the Minister for spelling that out so clearly. I am not for a moment questioning the assurance that the Minister has given about the consultation with the Electoral Commission. I realise that Amendment No. 42 may do so, but I did not intend it to treat regions differently, one from another. However, I am not clear what happens if, following consultation after the passing of the Bill, the Electoral Commission is unhappy, and what procedure would be allowed to enable the question and preamble to be changed.

Lord Rooker: After consulting and taking advice from the Electoral Commission before publishing the Bill, the Government made changes to the preamble to the question. The commission has now confirmed that it is content with the wording as set out in the Bill. We have no intention of changing that. Once the wording has been set out in the Act of Parliament, that will be it. The Electoral Commission would have approved the wording.

Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]

Viscount Simon: If Amendment No. 35 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 36 on the grounds of pre-emption.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 2, leave out line 27 and insert ""This referendum is advisory only. The Secretary of State will decide, after considering the referendum result, whether to establish an elected assembly for the"

Lord Hanningfield: I am sorry to have to return once again to the wording of the preamble, but I think that it is necessary to seek a further amendment. In the course of the previous debate the Minister remarked that he was a little confused by the wording. I am pleased that we were able to clarify at least part of it.
	We are particularly concerned about some of the words used in the preamble. The words,
	"'You can help to decide'",
	are rather ambiguous. We have already discussed the fact that after the review, if he so chooses, the Secretary of State will be able to change any recommendations made by the Boundary Committee. We know also that it will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether a region will be formed. The referendum will not decide whether a region is created; that is a matter for the Secretary of State. Perhaps it is for that reason that the words "help to decide" have been used.
	We feel that the position should be made much clearer. The preamble should stress that the referendum is advisory to the Government. Therefore, we propose that a form of words making that point should be included, otherwise the public could be misled. In helping to decide, people may think that they may be actually deciding something when they come to vote, but in fact they are not. Ultimately, it will be for the Secretary of State to decide. We believe that, in seeking to be fair and honest with the electorate, the preamble should make it clear that the referendum will be advisory and that the Secretary of State will take the ultimate decision. I beg to move.

Viscount Simon: I must further advise noble Lords that a mistake has been made in the line numbering of the Bill at this point. The amendment is to the first line of the statement, ending in a question mark.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I would oppose the amendment, as indeed I would oppose the wording set out in the Bill. I should have tabled an amendment to delete all those words. They are unnecessary and nothing is required at that point. If people take the trouble to go down to the polling station or to put a cross on a ballot paper at home, they will know damn well that they are contributing towards making a decision. They do not need to be told that they can "help to decide" whether there should be an elected assembly. If they are voting, then they ought to know what it is they are voting for. This is unnecessary verbiage.
	I oppose the proposed amendment because, given that under our constitution we have a parliamentary democracy rather than a people's democracy, every referendum must be advisory. No referendum can bind Parliament. Again, any amendment is completely unnecessary. All referendums must be advisory; the decision of any referendum need not be accepted by Parliament because Parliament is supreme. As I have said, we are a parliamentary democracy.
	I wish to make a further point. The amendment suggests that we should add a form of wording to make it clear that the referendum is advisory:
	"This referendum is advisory only. The Secretary of State will decide, after considering the referendum result, whether to establish an elected assembly for the".
	But that is already the case. You do not need an amendment to state what is already the position in law.
	Indeed, inserting those words may very well cause electors to say, "Well, what on earth is the point of my coming down here to vote if the Secretary of State has the final decision? In spite of what I say, he can do what he likes anyway". Many noble Lords are coming to the same conclusion that, no matter what we say, the Government and the Secretary of State will do what they want anyway. We do not want to encourage the electorate to believe that, no matter what they do in a referendum, it will be the Secretary of State who makes the decision.
	I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment. It is completely unnecessary under our constitution.

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has given a perfectly good reason for inserting the advisory clause. He said that the referendum is advisory anyway because you cannot bind Parliament. In that he is constitutionally correct. It should therefore be pointed out to the electorate that it is advisory only because of the state of the constitution. I do not believe that every member of the electorate understands that point. It is an extremely good and very important constitutional point. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has made a speech which, were you to take out the word "not", would make a perfectly valid argument for the advisory state of the referendum.

Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask a question. The opening words of the preamble are, "You can help to decide whether there should be"—not, "You can help to decide whether there should not be"—because the vote will decide one way or the other. I would argue that it is not an advisory note. It should be an explanatory note because it explains to people what they are voting for.
	My understanding of the Bill as it stands—I hope that it will not be in this form when it leaves the House—is that as few as 10 per cent of the electorate could turn out to vote and a majority of one would not leave the Secretary of State to decide whether there should be a regional assembly; it would bind him to forming one. Am I wrong? Would a majority of one be enough to determine the issue unless a threshold is put into the Bill?
	Is the Minister suggesting by the words, "You can help to decide" that, if the turn-out is very low and the majority extremely slim, the Secretary of State could use a flexible power to introduce a regional assembly; or, worse than that, if the referendum is lost by one or two votes, that the Secretary of State could decide that the result was so close that he could establish a regional assembly?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: A new face at the Dispatch Box. We are all agreed that the referendum is advisory. It is important that the Committee should know that the Electoral Commission has read this clause and has signalled that it is content with it.

Baroness Blatch: I thought that the referendum was a vote as to whether one should or should not have a regional assembly, not that it was advisory. Will people vote and then leave it to a third party to decide whether or not there should be a regional assembly? My understanding is that when you are asked to vote, you vote "Yes" or "No" and there is a majority one way or the other. An assembly will then be established if there is a "Yes" vote, and not established if there is a "No" vote.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The referendum will be advisory only. As we have said, the Secretary of State will decide after the referendum whether or not there should be an elected regional assembly.

The Earl of Onslow: So we go through the palaver of passing this Bill; there is a referendum; and then the Secretary of State says—I almost used the favourite spherical word of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—that he is going to pay no attention whatever to the result. In other words, for the sake of pure argument, there can be a referendum; 95 per cent of the people in a region turn out; 60 per cent say either yea or nay; then the Secretary of State says, "Because this is a referendum, it is advisory. I am going to ignore the result and do what I wanted to do anyway". That is a pretty odd way to run a referendum.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: If the Secretary of State were to act like that, he would be irrational. I think that we ought to bring this discussion into the real world. If a clear majority vote for—

The Earl of Onslow: Can or cannot the Secretary of State say, "I disagree with the referendum result"? If the answer is yes, it is advisory. That means that he can ignore it at will, and at any level.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The intention is for the Minister to be guided by the referendum results. If people vote "Yes", we intend to establish an assembly. If people vote "No", we intend not to. However, there is the obvious point that a further Bill is required to provide powers to establish assemblies.

The Earl of Onslow: That does not help at all. The Secretary of State can, therefore, say that he is going to ignore the result of a referendum. I am sorry to hammer this point home. It seems quite an important one.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It is a very important point, but the sentence that I read out a moment ago is crystal clear. The Government's intention is to be guided by the referendum result. If people vote "Yes", we intend to establish an assembly; if they vote "No", we intend not to.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may put another scenario to the noble Lord. It is important that we understand that Parliament is supreme. It is. Let us suppose that, in 2005, a referendum is held under a Labour government saying yes to a regional assembly; then, a few months later, there is a general election at which a Conservative government, not committed to regional assemblies, are elected. Is the noble Lord suggesting that the new government should be bound by a referendum instituted by the previous government? That is why Parliament is supreme.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Parliament is supreme. Perhaps I may return to the amendment and, if necessary, return to the points that we are discussing now.
	When the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, spoke initially he made a very good point; namely, that by including the word "help" we are allowing the electorate to contribute to making a decision. That is a good and inclusive thing to project to the electorate. I do not have difficulty with the inclusion of the word "help". In a democracy, it is rather a good word to have in this sentence. I really do not think that it moves away from the principle that the Secretary of State will decide, after considering a referendum result, whether to establish a regional assembly. So I do not have the problem with the word "help" that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has. I find it rather a helpful word.

Lord Hanningfield: There have already been some amendments on the preamble. The more we go on, the more confused we become. We were trying to make it clearer to the electorate that, as the Bill stands, they will not be deciding whether there will be a regional assembly. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, Parliament is currently paramount, but once the Bill reaches the statute book—if it does—the Secretary of State will probably be more paramount than Parliament because he has enormous powers under the Bill to establish a region or whatever he wants to do. That is really what we object to, and we think the preamble should make it clear what people are voting for.
	The White Paper is called Your Region, Your Choice. As I said on Second Reading, it should be "Your Region, the Secretary of State's Choice". We should make it clear in Committee that the preamble is very unsatisfactory. I and most of my noble friends would prefer that if people voted yes, the referendum would take place, and if they voted no, it would not. If that is not going to happen, the electorate should know that the referendum is advisory and not in any way binding on the Secretary of State who has all the powers if the Bill becomes law. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I am sure we will come back to the preamble later in the Bill's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Page 2, line 27, leave out "an" and insert "a directly"

Baroness Hamwee: I must admit that it was a slip on the keyboard that did not group this amendment with others when we were dealing with the groupings for last week. However, I move it simply to see whether the Minister has been able to give further thought to the inclusion of "directly", which we discussed then. He may still be burning the midnight oil, pondering over the issue. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We are back to the word "directly". I have not been burning the midnight oil, I am afraid, but I hope that officials have. I made a commitment last week that we would consider the amendment further. That stands. So, having been given this re-reassurance, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: I needed no re-reassurance.

Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, what is the reassurance? What exactly is the Minister saying? We had a long discussion about what "directly" meant, and it is not consistent with the Bill. It is not a directly elected assembly. What assurance is the Minister giving?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The assurance—I said re-reassurance because I have given it to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, twice—is that we will consider the discussion that we had last week on "directly" in front of "elected assemblies" and will come back to the House with our full recommendation.

Baroness Blatch: I offer a fulsome apology to the Minister. I had not realised that the question was still being considered. I thought he was confirming an assurance I had not heard about.

Baroness Hamwee: The noble Baroness may recall that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, came into the Chamber and offered some advice during the debate. I needed no further assurance; I had no doubt the matter was being considered. I simply hoped that we might take one issue off the Marshalled List for Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 2, line 32, after "development;" insert—
	"the functions of the organisations listed in the schedule below which are exercised in the region shall be transferred to the elected assembly and the powers of such organisations for the region shall be abolished;"

Baroness Hamwee: In moving Amendment No. 37, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 39.
	I accept that the amendments complicate the preamble and that I have been arguing for more simplicity. I wanted to ensure that we did not fall foul of the Bill by being outside the Long Title. I hope it will be apparent, at this hour of the evening, that I would like to probe the issue of powers. I am not proposing to go in detail through each activity and function of all the organisations listed in the amendment, and I hope the Minister's approach will be similar.
	The White Paper describes each region in the relevant appendix rather like a tourist brochure, giving an indicative list of the public bodies active in the North East. On Second Reading, in reply to my noble friend Lord Shutt, who asked whether there would be any fewer quangos, the Minister said:
	"The answer is probably 'no'. The legislation would not lead to the abolition of quangos. The strength of the provisions would lie in how the quangos were arranged and managed and were democratically accountable to the people sent by the electorate".—[Official Report, 20/2/03; col. 1331.]
	By definition, quangos are not democratically accountable. Our approach is to bring them clearly within the aegis of democratically accountable new regional assemblies.
	Page 80 of the White Paper says that many of these organisations are accountable to central government. It goes on to talk about central government operating locally. I am not wholly clear about the Government's approach to accountability. If we accept having central government programmes operating locally with quangos accountable to central government, the objective of having those quangos accountable through the regional tier will not be achieved.
	The government offices alone administer much of the regional programme. They are not going to be abolished. No doubt there are issues of costs. On this point it would be an unnecessary diversion to talk about the recipe for added costs that could be dealt with, but the Government seem to be going out of their way to fail to deal with. In any event, there is a cost of democracy and the cost-benefit analysis and balance suggests very strongly to me that a regional accountability mechanism is worth a great deal.
	The most important issue is the effectiveness of the work undertaken by the various organisations. The White Paper tells us:
	"Elected Assemblies will improve the quality of life for people in their regions, particularly by improving regional economic performance".
	It also says:
	"Assemblies will be given a lead role in developing strategies to achieve this".
	However, when we look further to issues such as transport, we find that the elected assemblies' responsibilities for transport strategy will include,
	"advising central government"—
	that is not being responsible for transport strategy; it is an advisory role—
	"on the allocation of funding for local transport, including consistency of local bids with regional policies and priorities".
	Assemblies will also have,
	"powers to make proposals to the Highways Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority".
	That is not strategic responsibility in the terms in which the chapter introducing all this seems to imply. It is an input into central government decisions. A regional input is good, but it does not amount to what could be achieved, which could take forward the development of the regions significantly. The White Paper tells us on page 34 that assemblies will improve "regional economic performance". However, the regional development agencies will remain operationally independent. The new assemblies can appoint to the boards, but there are constraints and criteria to be met with regard to those whom the assembly can appoint.
	The White Paper states that the assembly will provide funding from the block grant and will have maximum flexibility in allocating resources. I accept that there has been some movement as to how detailed the designation of the government grant is, but I do not believe that the words will accord with the experience of anyone in the Chamber who deals with economic regeneration as to flexibility in allocating resources.
	I am not going to go through the whole list, but I want to refer particularly to learning and skills councils. They are central to good economic performance. The skills of the workforce are the building block of good economic performance. The White Paper says so as well, stating:
	"Developing the skills of the workforce plays a vital role in economic development".
	It goes on to tell us that:
	"Elected assemblies will assume responsibility for drawing up and organising Frameworks for Regional Employment and Skills Action (FRESAs), which will set out the key priorities of the region in respect of skills development and improving employment opportunities".
	Why the separation? Why the responsibility for drawing up a central government programme? Might not a regional assembly see better than the Government what is appropriate for its own region?
	We do not see that approach as the right way to go about achieving good strategic regional government. I fear that it demonstrates a mindset, which is that the proposals do not amount to real devolution. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: The amendment only highlights the whole problem of what we are talking about. Until the Government spell out what regional assemblies will do and what their powers and functions might be, we are talking in a vacuum about regional government. As we have said several times in Committee, we need the Government to publish—perhaps initially in draft form so that we can comment on it, but then fully so that we can debate it in both Houses of Parliament—an Act of Parliament that sets out the powers and responsibilities of regional government.
	The noble Baroness has put forward a long list of quangos that are in the Government's paper on regions. We all agree that those quangos would be rather better if they were democratically controlled rather than appointed bodies controlled by people who did not have any democratic accountability. For our part, we would not want to see some of the quangos going to large regional government. Many of them could be dealt with much better by local authorities. For example, the Small Business Service is fairly local. One does not need a large regional government for it; a local authority would do. Therefore, I do not agree that everything should go to a regional assembly, but the issue will add to the problem.
	Until the Government spell out in an Act of Parliament what the powers and functions of regional government will be, we will continue to debate the issues without clarity as to what we should be doing.

The Earl of Caithness: I merely take up a small point mentioned by my noble friend. He said that there would be a problem until the Government spelled out in an Act of Parliament exactly what there would be. The trouble is that the referendum will already have taken place before we get the Act of Parliament. When we seek to alter that Act, the Minister will turn round and say, "Oh no, you can't alter the Act of Parliament because this is what people voted for in the referendum". My noble friend is not going to get what he wants; we have to get in earlier.

Baroness Blatch: I absolutely agree with that point. That is what makes the Bill so important. As I said earlier—much earlier—the Bill will trigger a great deal of executive action over which Parliament will have no say. The conditions that will apply when people come to make the decision are only "maybe or maybe not"; we have not had assurances that there will be a draft Bill before them. The Scottish people certainly made their decision without the detail before them, as did the Welsh people; that was also the case with London government. At the moment, I have no high hopes that a draft Bill will contain all the detail that will allow people to understand the issues.
	I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about learning and skills councils. Under some decisions, they could disappear altogether. Learning and skills councils are second-guessing organisations and their functions should reside with county councils, which previously had those functions and were doing a good job. I say to the noble Baroness that the tensions that grew up as a result of the way in which the learning and skills councils operate were very real. They fund sixth forms. A head teacher can be forgiven for being confused; instead of funding coming from one stream, it now comes from learning and skills councils for sixth-formers and from the Government through local government for the rest of the school. Although the school is a single entity, it has to deal with two different bodies.
	We also know that learning and skills councils are starting to discuss cuts in sixth-form funding. That makes running a school extremely difficult. A third problem arose in my area, where we have an outstanding music school in Huntingdon. Outside school hours, it serves the needs of adults and children, some of whom are as young as two or three and who are taught the violin by the Suzuki method. It is now likely to close because—would you believe it—the learning and skills council was set up only to deal with people who are 16-plus and by law cannot fund anyone below that age. There is a mixture of adults and children in that establishment, so it will probably go to the wall because of an unforeseen lacuna in the legislation. I argue not that learning and skills councils should be absorbed into the regional assembly but, frankly, that they should disappear altogether.
	It is terribly easy simply to put out the list and say that those bodies should form part of the regional assembly. We need a much longer and more detailed debate about the nature of each of the bodies, whether they should exist at all, and where their functions properly reside. A good number of them will be in local and/or district and/or unitary authorities. Simply to include them in this way and say that they should form part of regional assemblies is much too simplistic.

Lord Rooker: I will stick to the spirit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, proposed when she said that she did not want to go into much detail and that she knew that there were other Bills to come. However, she proceeded to go into an enormous amount of detail.
	I have repeated in this House what Nick Raynsford said in another place during the passage of the Bill; that is, that information will be available to people in the regions before they vote in the referendum, as will a statement from the Government, based on the White Paper, setting out what powers the elected regional assembly would have.
	Noble Lords have heard me say several times that we intend to bring forward another Bill to establish the elected regional assemblies when parliamentary time allows and after there has been a "Yes" vote in at least one region. That Bill will include detailed provisions about the statutory functions of elected assemblies. There is no doubt that both Houses of Parliament will want the Bill to be scrutinised properly. I am not going to anticipate those detailed discussions now; nor can I accept that the paving legislation should do so.
	The amendments are wholly inappropriate for this Bill. I know that I am going to get my hands slapped by the noble Baroness, who says, "This is so important. We need to know everything before we start". Life is not like that. We have a set of procedures to go through—I spelt them out in detail earlier.
	This level of detail should not be included in the Bill. Before people vote, they will know that level of detail in relation to elected assemblies. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment to a Division.

Baroness Hamwee: I shall not press my amendment tonight.
	I am chastised for going into too much detail, but I could have gone into a great deal more. There is a point of principle about the nature of quangos which it is right to address as part of the paving legislation. I am wholly with the noble Baroness on the need for a full Act. We have not had a satisfactory rationale from the Government as to why quangos and public bodies should be left with central government, but I can see that I shall not get such a rationale at this stage.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested that two particular services would be better dealt with by local government. I do not necessarily disagree with them. Someone may recall who set up the Small Business Service—I do not remember whether it was this Government or the previous Conservative government. Having a regional assembly with proper powers would enable the regional assembly to devolve some matters to local government. We on these Benches would be enthusiastic about that. However, no amendment will be perfect or sufficiently extensive, and had I produced one that was longer than the Bill itself, someone would probably have commented.
	The learning and skills councils are certainly a difficult issue, and I am aware of the problems highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I was concentrating on the connection between skills training and economic development. I wholly appreciate the difficulties that have arisen from the issue of continuity of education in skills training from 14 to 19. There are matters to be debated in that regard, but I named those bodies because the White Paper promotes economic development as central to the proposals for regional government. We should have skills training in whatever form—the more local the better, but better regional than national. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 39A:
	Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
	"It is not proposed to establish an elected regional assembly in any region until at least three regions have voted in favour of the establishment of such assemblies in referenda conducted pursuant to section 1 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003."

Lord Hanningfield: The amendment is designed to test and reconsider the constitutional area of setting up the regions. I doubt that we want to reopen the debate about the constitutional effect on England that took us an hour and a half earlier today. However, whatever the Minister says, setting up regional government will cause a big constitutional change. It affects both this Parliament and local government. In a previous debate, we discussed whether regional government was "big local government"—we do not want to go into that again, either. However, these changes will involve a massive reorganisation of local government, including moving to a unitary system in England. Therefore, there should be a sufficient test of public opinion; people should be asked whether they want to go down that route.
	We have been told over many years that Members of Parliament in the North East desperately want regional government, and that is why the Bill is before us and why there will be regional elections, although that may be only media speculation. That is the favoured area for regional government, because it adjoins Scotland and people around Newcastle want it. We do not think that that would be sufficient. I know that the Minister will deny that it is only for the North East, the North West or Yorkshire and Humberside. However, we believe that there should be a sufficient test of the feeling for regional government in England. There should be sufficient support for such change before we start to dismember the current system and replace it with different systems across the country.
	We tabled the amendment because we feel that at least three potential regions should vote in favour of regions before even one of them is set up. It is a constitutional issue and we think that the issue should be pursued. We feel that without the legitimacy bestowed by such a test, it would be wrong to set up one region while perhaps leaving the rest of the country as it is. We want to test the popular support for regional government in England. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: The amendment raises an issue that I do not think we have yet discussed at all—the mishmash of layers of government that would be created if there were regional government in only one or two parts of the country. We have not yet discussed how those layers of government would interrelate. Is the North East of England to have superior powers and to get more of what it wants? It certainly thinks that that would be the result. It thinks that it would be much better placed than areas without regional government to get money from the Government and from Europe. I think that that is a falsehood. Indeed, I think that the Minister himself has said that that is unlikely. He said that regional status is unlikely to be preferable and that it is more an administrative matter.
	However, if there are fewer than three or four regions—three would be less than 50 per cent of potential regions—there will be a very strange local government structure. We have not tested that proposition. This amendment gives us the opportunity to ask the Government what they are doing with the structures of government. What do they expect to result from this change? Why should one part of the country be governed in a completely different way from others? As my noble friend said, we need an indication of how popular the idea is across the country. Indeed, we could have done that had we had a referendum across the whole country before we set off on this debate. We have not tabled an amendment to that effect, but it might have been a very good idea.
	I think that there is going to be a great lack of cohesion. I think that this amendment opens up that debate.

Lord Greaves: I do not think that we can support this amendment and I shall explain why. In a sense, it comes back to the different positions from which we and the Conservatives approach the Bill. Both Opposition parties are very sceptical about the Bill and the Government's objectives, but we are sceptical for different—and in many ways opposite—reasons. We are sceptical because we want to see good, strong regional government in as much of England as possible. We do not think that this Bill will deliver that. The Conservatives are sceptical because they do not want the Bill at all and they fear that it will deliver at least part of that agenda. There are occasions when we come head to head with the Conservatives and say that we disagree fundamentally.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, mentioned the risk of creating a mishmash if only one or two—and then she said three or perhaps four—regions are created. The amendment specifies three regions. In her terms, there would be a mishmash unless the whole of England had regional government or did not have it. From her point of view, it would not matter whether one, two, three, six or seven of the eight regions went ahead with regional government. She said that areas under regions would be governed by completely different systems and in a completely different way.
	But, of course, we already have that in the United Kingdom. We have three countries: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I correct myself—Northern Ireland is a Province and has suspended regional government, although perhaps the suspension will be lifted before too long. Therefore we already have a "mishmash" in the noble Baroness's terms. London has a completely different system from that of the rest of England, and that does not appear to have resulted in the disintegration of the kingdom.
	There is now a whole series of different systems even within local government. Some places have elected mayors—a rather disastrous system which was nevertheless foisted on various parts of the country by the present Government. Even when we do not have elected mayors, local authorities have different systems of running themselves. We have unitary authorities, two-tier authorities and so on.
	Therefore, in the noble Baroness's terms, we have a mishmash. That is not an argument for or against the amendment. It may be an argument against the Bill altogether and I am sure that, if the noble Baroness is honest, that is her argument in relation to the mishmash.
	Whatever happens, if regional assemblies are elected in any parts of England, we shall end up with different systems in different regions. As a Liberal Democrat, that does not worry me very much. I should like to see effective regional devolution throughout England. However, I recognise that, at least in parts of England, it will take time for the understanding and the wish for that to develop. I am certain that, if regional assemblies were on offer at present, Cornwall, for example, would grab it with two hands and possibly parts of the north of England would also be willing to go ahead.
	However, the fact is that there is one system in one area and another system in another. I use the earlier words of the Minister: so what? Why does it matter? Why is it necessary to have uniformity of administrative and democratic structures across the country? The model is Spain, which has had a whole series of asymmetrical initiatives and systems of devolution for the different regions, and still has. Some Catalonians might consider Catalonia to be a country and not a region, and most Scots consider it to be a country and not a region.
	Catalonia has a substantial system of devolution—far greater than most parts of Spain. But does that mean that Catalonia is in a state of disintegration? Of course it does not. The Basque country has far greater devolution than other parts of Spain. There are political problems associated with separatism, but those are distinct from the question of the system of government and administration. That does not matter. What matters is that the people who live in those areas are comfortable with the system they have. That is why consulting people and referendums—

Baroness Hanham: It seems to me that the Basque country is a dreadful example to put forward. People in the Basque country fight each other all the time not only over the administration and the political system—I understand that—but over the question of nationhood. That is a very poor example to put forward as an area which administers itself and has its own democratic point.

Lord Greaves: That may be the noble Baroness's view but it is not one with which I agree. There are problems in the Basque country. They are political problems and problems of separatism, which often arise after people have lived in a state of subjugation under highly centralised, dictatorial systems, of which the former Yugoslavia is a classic example. What has happened in the Basque country is very similar to that.
	Whether the Spanish Government centrally have dealt with the matter as well as they should have done is a different issue. But the difficulties in the Basque country have nothing to do with the system of regional devolution there. In practice, that has been quite successful. The difficulties are far more national within Spain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, may understand.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, also talked about different systems all over England. Again, there is no problem with that. Our objection to the amendment is that if regionalisation goes ahead and regions are willing to experiment, take it on board and do it, they should be allowed to do so. It is quite likely that under the present Government proposals, there will be one region only in England that wants to embrace it and go ahead. That is a likely outcome. I speak as someone from the North West, who knows the North West—

Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord address the asymmetric point? One or two amendments ago the noble Baroness Lady Hamwee suggested a number of regional bodies that could be subsumed into the regional assemblies. But a great many of those bodies, including the learning and skills councils, which we discussed in some detail, are tied in line management terms with a national body. There is a national Learning and Skills Council as well as learning and skills councils and a national Sector Skills Council as well as sector skills councils. There is a national CBI organisation and a national environmental organisation. So if one gets one, two or even three parts of the country becoming asymmetrically regional what would happen with the break-up of these national bodies which are regionally delivered? It would create the most incredible confusion around the country.

Lord Greaves: I have greater faith in people's understanding of systems than does the noble Baroness. I do not think that it would cause incredible confusion.
	The noble Baroness is not arguing—I say again—in favour of this amendment, which is only about whether it should be one, two, three regions or whatever, but against the whole tenor of the Bill and the whole process of going ahead with asymmetric devolution. We do not think it is a problem. The question is: what would other national organisations do? Almost inevitably—as happened with Scotland and Wales in many cases—they would reorganise themselves in order to fit in with the structure of public decision-making. That is the way organisations work. The reason why they presently have an English national structure is because that is the way government in England is organised. If there were devolution for some regions in England organisations would match it in their own structures and systems. To suggest that it would be so confusing that no one could possibly understand it is stretching the argument a little far, to put it mildly.
	I make one final point. I think that there is a good argument for going ahead with one region only. It is up to the people in the regions as to whether they want to go ahead. I mention the North East because, despite the fact that the Minister will tell me that he knows nothing about this and never hears this talk, everyone knows that region is the leading contender to go ahead. There is a good argument for saying, "Let the North East go ahead and test the Government's proposal, despite the grave scepticism many of us have about it from opposite ends, and let other areas see how it works". That would provide a model which would be a much better basis on which areas such as the North West could make their decision as to whether to go ahead.
	The danger I foresee is that in the first wave too many regions will be forced to have referendums. The regions which would really benefit from regional government will lose the referendum because of the uncertainty; because of the effect it will have on local government; because people will be split between those who do not want it and who invent all kinds of bogeys about how much it will cost and so on; and those who cannot raise the enthusiasm to campaign for it because it is a fairly feeble offering. The referendum will then be put off almost indefinitely.
	So I oppose the amendment simply because, among other things, I think there is a good case to test it out in one region only at the beginning.

Baroness Hamwee: To add to what my noble friend said, the asymmetric nature of the proposal does not trouble me—as it obviously did not trouble those drafting the amendment.
	However, I wonder what faith people would have in politics if they turned out to vote in their region, voted in a majority "Yes" vote, but nothing happened because two other regions did not also vote "Yes" by a majority. Indeed, I wonder whether that proposal would skew the outcome. It would certainly skew the turnout, because someone might think, "My cousin Betty in Pendle says that the North West does not want an assembly, so it will not happen, because there will not be three. And it is raining, so I will stay at home in Skipton and watch the new series on television". That is a likely reaction to the proposal in the amendment.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, instanced the position in Spain. I respectfully suggest to him that the history of Spain is entirely different from that of this country. The history of a country impinges on the present. The local government structure in this country has evolved—if I can put it that way—from being a collection of kingdoms, which were first united by William the Conqueror and, to an even greater extent, by Edward VII. The tradition of government in this country has therefore come from the shires and towns. That is what we are left with; that is what we have.
	The Deputy Prime Minister is an expert on the matter. He toured the country to discover whether regional government was desirable and possible. He came to the conclusion that it was. He has been selling the idea for many years but, unfortunately—this is my theory—many people would not buy it. Because a lot of people would not buy it, he feels that it is impossible for Parliament to impose a regional system on the country, which has county loyalties above all and, sometimes, even town loyalties.
	We therefore have the Bill as a ruse, as has been mentioned, to create a domino effect. The most likely area votes first, and then others say, "We must have that as well. They have an elected assembly; we must have one too". Then one goes throughout the country and gets a vote in every part of England for regional assemblies. I do not think that it will happen that way, because, let us make no mistake, people are fond of their shires. Even our cricket teams, for example, are based on counties, not regions. There is no regional loyalty—not even in the North East. The nearest we come to it is in Yorkshire. We all know that people in parts of Yorkshire are very loyal to Yorkshire.
	The North East is the favoured area because people there have seen what has happened in Scotland. They say, "Look what has happened in Scotland. They have their own Parliament". Of course, the North East will not have its own Parliament, nor its own tax-raising powers, as Scotland has. What is more, as we already know—we have been told it time and time again—the North East will not be favoured as Scotland is in the Barnett formula. It would be different if we were to alter the Barnett formula. But, in spite of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that the formula should be ended, it is to be continued. That is why people in the North East feel that they would do better if they had a regional assembly. It simply will not happen.
	I do not agree with the regions, as noble Lords know. But, if the Government were confident about their policy and that regional assemblies were a good thing, they would have a properly structured Bill for regions throughout the country. It is nonsense to suggest that this is the proper way forward. I do not think that it will work. Frankly, I do not know whether this amendment would help much; it would probably complicate matters even more. But perhaps that is a good thing. I would like to consider the matter further.

Lord Rooker: At the risk of winding anyone up, this is the cheekiest amendment that we have dealt with—the brass neck in proposing to slap down the variety and mishmash that is England. Long may that mishmash continue; we do not want all of England to be the same. This amendment seeks to make all of it the same. The whole thrust of it is cheeky.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his 12-minute speech, made some brilliant arguments against the amendment but spoke for so long that I have forgotten them, so I cannot use them. It is a bit rich to demand that three or more regions vote in favour of a regional assembly. It is a wrecking amendment that seeks to drive England to be uniform. The underlying thrust is that everywhere must be the same. We do not want England to be the same; we want to embrace its variety. We argue about the boundaries, but all of the country is not the same; therefore, people should have a choice. The idea that people in one or two regions could stop people elsewhere effectively exercising their choice undermines the democratic credentials of noble Lords.
	The amendment is unworthy—I am getting even stronger now. It is cheeky and unworthy to come up with it. I could go through a long list, playing off one region against another, but I shall not fall into that trap. We should celebrate the mishmash of England. I realise that around 83 or 84 per cent of the UK's population live in England. The United Kingdom is unbalanced—long may that continue. But it is wrong in principle to seek to drive the system to be the same for everybody. Noble Lords should think better of it. I cannot believe that, even if its supporters thought that they would obtain a majority, they would seriously seek to include it in the Bill. I challenge them to say that, even if they thought that there was majority support for the amendment, they would not press it. I certainly hope that they do not.

Baroness Hanham: Before the Minister sits down, the corollary of his argument about mishmash and uniformity is that, beneath the regional tier, one does nothing—one does not form uniformity below the tier of government.

Lord Rooker: We are not seeking uniformity—no, no, no. In some regions, there will be unitary districts or, maybe, unitary counties. It will not be the same in every region. Some districts that are single tier may join or overlap because of the boundary review. The Boundary Committee will not come up with the same pattern for every region; I am absolutely certain of that.

Baroness Blatch: If they are unitary authorities, they will be the same. Whether merged districts or county councils, they will have exactly the same functions and will be uniform unitary authorities, unless something new that we do not know about is happening and powers are to be moved around all over the place. They will be unitary authorities with unitary powers, and they will have uniform powers throughout the land.

Lord Rooker: As I said, they will be unitary, but they will not be the same, in the way that the noble Baroness puts it. A unitary county is not the same as a unitary district. Other districts will be considered. It will not be the same pattern in every region. By definition, the regions are different, but "No new tiers" is the mantra, and we are sticking to it.
	Even at this late stage, I challenge noble Lords opposite to say whether, if they got the votes, they would seriously put this amendment on the statute book.

Lord Hanningfield: I am sad that I had to be the one who proposed this cheeky and unworthy amendment, as the Minister called it. This one fell to my turn.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to two bad examples, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, Spain is about the worst possible example of the variation of regions. There is great unhappiness in Spain. One knows only too well what is happening in the Basque area, and Catalonia sees itself as being divorced from the rest of the country. I do not want to see us doing the same thing in England, making one part separate from the rest.
	I agree with the Minister that one does not want everything to be the same. One of the great virtues of England is that Cornwall is enormously different from Cumbria. Everywhere should be different. The suggested system of eight regions is more uniform than the system that we have. I like the diversity of the current system. I have been in local government since I was about 20, and the fact that there have been metropolitan areas, county areas, district areas and London boroughs has added to the spice of life in local government. I would rather see that continue than have one unitary system in the country.
	I return to our earlier point. This is a constitutional issue. It is changing the system. There are no natural regions in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, we have counties and large metropolitan areas, and there are no natural regions. In many other countries, there are, for historical reasons, natural regions. We have what we have—large counties and small counties. Disturbing that is a big constitutional issue. That is why we proposed the amendment. We should ensure that a substantial number of people in England want to see regional government, not just in one area. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Why should the North East be a guinea pig? Why should Northumberland suffer?

Lord Greaves: The answer to the question, which the noble Lord might like to consider, is that it wishes to be a guinea pig.

Lord Hanningfield: I doubt that Northumberland and Durham wish to be guinea pigs. In fact, I know that Northumberland does not. The people whom I know there are not very supportive of the concept. I have been to several meetings with people from Durham. They are busy trying to make a unitary county out of Durham county. There is a lot of unhappiness. I doubt that all the people in that area wish it to be a guinea pig, even if there is a majority on the question of a referendum.
	The proposed developments for England lead us into a minefield. I must say to the Minister that we would have the gall to put the provision into the statute book, if we had the votes, so I shall test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 53.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Apple and Pear Research Council (Dissolution) Order 2003

Lord Whitty: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I shall speak also to the second Motion.
	The orders seek to transfer the work of the Apple and Pear Research Council to the Horticultural Development Council by dissolving the Apple and Pear Research Council and extending the HDC's remit to include apples and pears. Both councils are executive non-departmental public bodies funded by a statutory levy on growers and with a remit to commission research and development.
	The Horticultural Development Council raises about £3.6 million from the levy, of which about 11 per cent is spent on administrative expenses. The Apple and Pear Research Council is a much smaller organisation. Its levy has been declining with a regrettably contracting apple and pear industry. It raised just under £261,000 in the year ending 31st March 2002 when its administrative expenses were running in excess of 33 per cent of income.
	A statutory review of the APRC took place last year and included an independent economic evaluation. The report of the evaluation concluded that there continues to be a requirement for a levy-funded organisation carrying out near-market R&D in support of the apple and pear industry and recommended that the functions of the APRC and HDC should be merged. The continuation of a separate development council solely for the apple and pear industry was seen as unsustainable in the face of declining levy income and the proportion of the council's income that was being devoted to running costs. The recommendations of the economic evaluation were subject to consultation with the industry, which was supportive of the proposed merger of the two councils.
	The Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 2003 will make a number of changes. It will allow the HDC to raise a levy from growers of apples and pears; add an additional member to the council to represent the interests of growers of apples and pears; extend the council's remit to allow for market research and promotional activities, thus implementing recommendation 28 of the report of the policy commission on the future of food and farming, the Curry commission; and it will clarify the council's health and safety remit.
	Although the amendment order increases the maximum permissible rate of levy for apple and pear growers, which currently stands at 50p above the levy rate of £24.50 per hectare, this does not represent an increase to the current rate but allows scope for future increases.
	The Apple and Pear Research Council (Dissolution) Order 2003 will wind up the council and transfer its assets and liabilities to the Secretary of State. Once those liabilities have been dealt with, the remaining assets will be transferred to the HDC to fund apple and pear research.
	The merger of the two councils can only be of benefit to payers of the apple and pear levy. I am pleased that the industry—and, indeed, the horticultural industry generally—has given its approval to a move that will make it stronger in the future. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear explanation of the two orders. We on these Benches support the move described by the Minister.
	It is extremely important that the research and development functions of the HDC and the Apple and Pear Research Council are merged. That will add strength to both bodies, particularly to the smaller body, and to the apple and pear industry. It is important that the functions of quality research into crop protection, reduction of input costs, increasing yields and efficiency, improving the quality of produce and making better use of post-harvesting technology are included. We all want to see the industry thrive.
	The amalgamation of the two councils will bring economies of scale, which we welcome. However, we are concerned about the future and the long-term financial commitment of the Government to research. The HDC will extend its remit to cover market research and promotional activities at its centre at East Malling in the heart of Kent. As the Minister pointed out, this will enhance the recommendation of the Curry commission.
	In another place, my honourable friend John Hayes raised the wider issue of long-term horticultural research and resources. The Minister clarified the issue in his response but I should like to put on record that, although we are dealing today with the apple and pear industry, we are still anxious that research into horticulture generally is encouraged and supported by the Government. We welcome the two orders.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches can see the necessity now for this merger. The research work commissioned by DEFRA into the future of the two bodies was carried out, I believe, in 2001. I hope that that will be seen in future as the low point for British produce. It is already on the upturn: farmers' markets have taken off well since then. The Curry commission pointed out the importance of marketing our produce in a different way. Supermarkets are now at least seized of the issue. When one looks at their shelves, one sees that they are not doing a great deal about it at present, but their literature indicates that they understand it.
	Perhaps the Minister will clarify the following points. Some eight recommendations came out of the research at the University of Reading. I shall highlight only one, but I ask that all eight should be taken on board. I refer to the recommendation that there should be a five-year research and technology transfer strategy for tree fruit. I echo the words from the Conservative Benches regarding the importance of research and of the Government providing sufficient support. I ask for that recommendation in particular to be taken on board.

The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these orders before the House. I agree with everything that my noble friend said. There is great concern throughout agriculture about the present state of the industry. The apple and pear industry is no exception. I only hope that this change will help to halt the fact that the industry is shrinking, and that it will help the industry to increase part of its output.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of noble Lords who have spoken. The amount of research funded by the HDC, now to include the Apple and Pear Research Council, is only part of the total support for research into horticulture. A significant part of the Government's expenditure on horticulture, which is itself the largest single element in agricultural research—10 per cent of the horticultural research directly funded by government—relates to apples and pears. The figure last year was £1.1 million. So the apples and pears sector is already receiving a significant proportion of the horticultural research funding.
	That recognises the need—indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—for an upgrading of the performance of the apples and pears sector. It has been going through bad times in terms of its ability to compete with imports, and in some of the downstream sectors as well. So we are concerned to ensure that the apples and pears sector has a prominent and important research element.
	So far as concerns general expenditure on horticulture, the noble Baroness will be aware that an exercise is taking place on the future of HRI, which was the recipient of a very substantial proportion of government research. We hope for a constructive outcome from that. A part of the research will deal with the East Malling site, which is adjacent to the headquarters of the research councils, but some will deal with the need to bring the totality of horticultural research closer to the market and to enable all sectors of horticulture to have an adequate research base. The Government are committed to that. The total research budget for DEFRA, as for other government departments, has been protected and horticulture will continue to be a major element. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 2003

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill

Returned from the Commons with certain of the Lords amendments agreed to; with certain other Lords amendments agreed to with amendments and with the remaining Lords amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreements; it was ordered that the Commons amendments and reasons be printed.
	House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.